Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL-OAA Questions and Answers

Transcription

1 Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SOL-OAA Questions and Answers Q1. Is CUBRC (the incumbent) eligible to prime a bid? A: No, CUBRC is not eligible to propose as a prime contractor on this procurement. Q2. SF33 #9 shows the proposal due date as 3/2/15, elsewhere the due date is 3/23/15. Would you please confirm the date the proposal is due? A: Questions to this solicitation are due March 2, 2015 at 12:00 pm EST. Proposals are due March 23, 2015 at 10:00 am EST. Q3. On page 20, the Level of Effort for the technical review activities is 160 days. Does this level of effort have to be shared by the COP and the Primary Technical Program Officer? If yes, how does the government suggest this be allocated based on prior experience with the project? A: The estimated level-of-effort of 160 days refers to the combined effort of the COP, Primary Technical Program Officer (PTPO), and all other personnel that the contractor and any subcontractors assign to that task. Allocations of this effort among staff have varied widely based on the backgrounds, experiences, and roles of the COPs, PTPOs, and other staff. The COP and PTPO should be directly and substantially involved in accordance with the descriptions of their duties in Section C.4(b) on page 14. As noted in Section C.4, the PTPO may also be the same person as the COP if the contractor chooses. Q4. In section L.4(b)2 (pages 62-63), Management and Staffing, two key staff positions are noted: Chief of Party (COP) and the Primary Technical Program Officer (PTPO). In that same section, there are requirements for references and a letter of availability for staff. Are these requirements for the COP and the PTPO only or for all proposed staff? A: The formal requirements for references and letters of availability apply to the COP and PTPO. Resumes are the only required items for other staff performing technical tasks, as noted in Section L.4(b)2 of the RFP if such personnel are known; however, the contractor may additionally choose to provide references and letters of availability for these other personnel too. Q5. In Section L.4(b)3, (page 63) Past Performance, it says that Offerors must provide past performance references for itself and each proposed major subcontractor.the offeror must list 3-5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. Please clarify if the 3-5 references are inclusive of subcontractors or separate. If separate, how many references for each major subcontractor are desired?

2 A: The 3-5 most recent and relevant contracts are inclusive of subcontractors as well. Some of the 3-5 most recent and relevant contracts may be those received by a major subcontractor instead of the prime contractor. Q6. On page 63, it says that an overall detailed budget should be provided for all CLIN for the (1)-year base period and the three (3) and (1) year option periods. However, pages 4 and 64 indicate the project will have four (a) option one (1) year option periods. Please confirm how many option years the budget should include. A: The total effort for this requirement is one (1) base year and four (4) one (1) year option periods. The budget shall encompass one (1) base year and four (4) one (1) year option periods. Q7. Could the government describe the current SQL environment and what size it is currently supporting? A: At present the SQL database in being managed by the incumbent contractor, and details regarding the SQL database will be shared at time of award. Q8. How many hard copies of proposal materials are typically requested by peer reviewers annually? A: At present it is estimated that hardcopies of proposal materials are requested by two or fewer panel reviewers in each panel. Q9. Is there an internal USAID electronic grants management system currently used to manage the applications submitted? A: No, there is no USAID electronic grants management system currently used to manage the applications submitted to the MERC Program. MERC submissions are ed attachment documents, typically in MS-Word or Adobe PDF. Q10. Is Grants.gov used for application submissions? A: No, Grants.gov is not used for application submissions. Q11. How many proposals are typically recommended for resubmission annually? A: In an annual review cycle, there are typically two or fewer full proposals recommended for direct resubmission as a new full proposal in the next cycle. The average over the past five years has been roughly one per year. If the intent of this

3 question was to ask how many pre-proposals are typically invited for submission as full proposals annually, the answer is fewer than 20 per year and most frequently Q12. Section C.3, Item a.2 on page 8 (and also on page 12 (c.3); page 13 (d) and elsewhere). There is a referenced to a secure website or website. Is the contractor expected to develop a standalone website OR a webpage linked to the USAID.GOV portal? Please clarify. A: The secure website in Section C.3, Item a.2 on page 8 refers to a passwordprotected share site or drop box on the web that the contractor would establish to allow the contractor to post, and peer-review panelists to easily retrieve, proposals and other support material pertaining to the panel on which the panelist serves. Likewise, the secure website in Section C.3, Item c.3 on page 12 refers to a password-protected share site or drop box on the web that the contractor would establish to allow the contractor to post, and MERC Committee members to easily retrieve, proposals and other support material pertaining to the MERC Committee meeting. Both of these would be standalone websites or sites within a contractor s domain, and not linked to the usaid.gov portal. In contrast, the website mentioned in Section C.3, Item d on page 13 would be a public website maintained by the contractor, and would be subject to USAID s direction and policies on activation, posting, and linkage to a site or sites on the usaid.gov portal, with such USAID policies being subject to change. Q13. Section L.4 (a) on page 61; Please clarify the format for the past performance matrix referenced in the final bullet on the list of items that are not included in the page limitation. A: The offeror shall submit a Past Performance Short Form not a Past Performance Matrix that is referenced in the final bullet on the list of items that are not included in the page limitation in section L.4(a). Q14. Section L.5, Part 2: Item number 3 is missing from the list (page 65). A: Please see question #16. This section has been deleted and replaced in the solicitation. Q15. Section L.5, Part 2: Item number 4 references a ceiling rate. Please define how a ceiling rate is determined (page 65). A: Please see question #16.This section has been deleted and replaced in the solicitation. Q16. Section L.5, Part 2 (Proposed Cost/Prices): The requested detailed for the budget appears to be consistent with a CPFF-type contract. Since USAID has indicated that it anticipates

4 awarding a Firm-Fixed Price contract that is competitively solicited, why wouldn t the Government request ONLY fully-burdened, fixed price labor categories and rates? A: Delete Part 2 Proposed Costs/Prices and insert the following: Part 2 Price The Price Proposal shall include a budget for one (1) base year and four (4) one-year options. The price proposal shall include a budget summary to explain all assumptions used in developing the cost to USAID and should be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel with access to formulas. When developing the price proposal the offeror shall use fullyburdened labor rates. Please submit a budget for the following with your Price Proposal: (1) Peer-review Support to USAID (2) Technical Support of USAID in Monitoring of Grants (3) Technical and Administrative Support of the Overall Program (4) Public Information about the Programs Q17. Section L.3 (Deliver Instructions): Since no hard copies of proposals are accepted, please provide instructions for major subcontractors to submit their full-disclosure cost proposals to USAID. A: Major subcontractors shall submit their full-disclosure cost proposals in to Alicia Henderson at [email protected] on or before March 23, 2015 at 10:00 am EST. In the , the major subcontractor shall identify which Prime offeror they are a major subcontractor for. Q18. Should Annexes be submitted as a separate MS Word attachment or should they be included in the technical proposal MS Word document? A: Annexes shall be included in the technical proposal MS Word document. Q19. Does the government have an estimate on the annual dollar amount of Other Direct Costs for this solicitation? A: USAID does not have a fixed estimate on the annual dollar amount of ODCs for this solicitation. Based on what is stated in Section C of the solicitation, the offeror shall make that determination as to how much ODCS shall be.

5 Q20. Has the government considered 8a set aside for a qualified firm? A: USAID conducted market research for this requirement. After conducting market research it was determined that a small business set-aside would be more appropriate for this solicitation. Q21. Has the government experienced any issues with recruiting reviewers without compensation? A: USAID has not experienced any significant difficulties with recruiting reviewers without compensation. Occasionally a reviewer will refuse to participate unless they are paid, but such instances have been quite rare. When it has happened, a different reviewer was recruited instead to serve pro bono. Q22. Will the Government allow the in-person MERC committee panel reviewers to be held at location within DC that is more than a ½ mile from USAID headquarters if all other requirements listed are met (i.e., public transit, parking, room for 30 panelists)? A: No, USAID will not allow the in-person MERC Committee meeting to be held at location that is more than a ½ mile from USAID headquarters.