RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Amend 0001 Attachment E - Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 63 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 12314423Q0143
About this file
This document provides questions and answers related to solicitation number 12314423Q0143 for the USDA STRATUS Cloud Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) Pool 2 opportunity. The solicitation seeks integration and development services to support the USDA in creating an enterprise approach to data, tools, and platforms. Key details include that the period of performance is 10 years, evaluation will occur in three phases with advisory down-select notices provided after each, and approximately 25 BOAs are expected to be awarded to a mix of large and small businesses.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Solicitation #12314423Q0143 | Amendment 0001 |
| Questions and Answers |
| Question # | RFQ Document | Page Number | Section Number | Vendor Question | Government's Response |
| 1 | RFQ, Attachment X, or Other | Enter Page # | Section of RFQ/Attachment or other identifying information | Provide detailed narrative of questions | |
| 2 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Attachment+A+-+SOO | 5 | 15. FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services | Does a contractor need to possess FEDRAMP certification to qualify for providing FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services? | A FedRAMP accredited 3PAO will perform those services. |
| 3 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Attachment+A-+SOO.pdf | 6-May | 15. FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services | In evaluating demonstrated prior experience in Statement of Objective (SOO) task area 15 for Phase 1, the offeror respectfully suggests that the Government consider that there are relevant services providing assessments with similar scopes to the Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) that are not necessarily performed by 3PAO Assessors. We recommend that the Government not limit the relevancy evaluation of SOO 15 to evaluate whether an offeror is a 3PAO Assessor. | Similar services as described will be considered. |
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
4 SOO 5 15. FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services Can you please validate the Pool 2 system integrator will facilitate and not perform the FedRamp activities outlined in Objective 15? USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
5 SOO 5 15 "FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services": Will the Contractor be responsible for providing 3PAO services, or just working with cloud service providers (CSP) and/or FedRAMP marketplace providers to make relevant 3PAO reports available to USDA for FedRAMP compliance verification purposes? Requirements will be specified at the TO level, and may include both scenarios described in this question.
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
| 6 | B02 RFQ STRATUS POOL 2 Attachment B | 5 | B.1.2.1 | Attachment B section B.1.2.1 states “Authorized Assessment and Evaluation Entity Responsibilities – Authorization and Evaluation Entities as defined in Section 0”. Section 0 does not seem to be provided. Could you please provide section 0 or provide additional guidance on which document has section 0? | See Amended Attachment B. Section "0” was an incorrect reference. The correct reference is Section "B.1.1". |
| 7 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment A - SOO | 5 | A.1 - 15 FedRAMP Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services | We acknowledge that FedRAMP authorization and 3PAO Services are requirements for USDA to assess and maintain FedRAMP authorization for CSP and DISC products. Notwithstanding, 3PAO services are typically contractually segregated from the other scope areas listed in the SOO (e.g. App Dev, Architecture, CICD) as auditing/assessing the work you have implemented would be an Impaired Objectivity Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). USDA has stated an intent to award 25 BOAs, but there are only 40 companies listed in the FedRamp marketplace that provide 3PAO assessor services. These specialized companies typically do not provide many of the other scope areas listed in the SOO that USDA is seeking to acquire. As such, would the Government either: |
1) Remove scope area 15 from the SOO and past experience template or
2) Make scope area 15 mutually exclusive to the other areas, meaning 3PAO assessor vendors can submit past experiences specific to scope area 15 only and the Government can award a BOA(s) to a prime vendor that specializes in 3PAO services and can maintain independent objectivity to meet this mission need, amongst a diverse group of BOA awardees. Task Area 15 “FedRAMP Authorizations and 3PAO Assessor Services” allows for the issuance of a specific Task Order for Assessment Services. Under this type of task order award, the Government would pay the Assessment organization for the assessment. OCI will be managed at the task order level. No company will be asked to assess its own work or applications developed.
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
| 8 | Attachment A (SOO) | 5 | A.1.(15) | This task area (FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services) appears to create a conflict of interest by having contractors who may develop software also operate as 3rd party assessors. Please clarify the intent of this task area. | Task Area 15 “FedRAMP Authorizations and 3PAO Assessor Services” allows for the issuance of a specific Task Order for Assessment Services. Under this type of task order award, the Government would pay the Assessment organization for the assessment. OCI will be managed at the task order level. No company will be asked to assess its own work or applications developed. |
| 9 | Attachment A SOO | #5-#6 | Phase 1 Prior Experience | Will the Government please consider removal of Statement of Objective (SOO) Areas #15 (FedRAMP Authorization 3PAO Assessor Services) and #16 (Security Assessment and Authorization (A&A) Services) as these 2 would traditionally be competed in a separate procurement, to ensure no organizational conflict of interest occurs? | Task Area 15 “FedRAMP Authorizations and 3PAO Assessor Services” allows for the issuance of a specific Task Order for Assessment Services. Under this type of task order award, the Government would pay the Assessment organization for the assessment. OCI will be managed at the task order level. No company will be asked to assess its own work or applications developed. |
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
10 Attachement A 5 A.1 3PAO work can create an OCI risk for System Integrators because it involves the assessment of one's own implementation. With that in mind, would the Government consider making Objective 15 "FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services" an optional task? Task Area 15 “FedRAMP Authorizations and 3PAO Assessor Services” allows for the issuance of a specific Task Order for Assessment Services. Under this type of task order award, the Government would pay the Assessment organization for the assessment. OCI will be managed at the task order level. No company will be asked to assess its own work or applications developed.
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
11 B02 RFQ STRATUS POOL 2 Attachment B 5 B.1.2.1 Attachment B section B.1.2.1 states “Cost ‐ Authorized assessment and evaluation entities are responsible for their assessment and evaluation costs.” Based on other statements, Authorized assessment and evaluation entities are the entities that are performing the assessments (FedRAMP 3PAOs and Assessment organizations). Can you explain this statement? Assessment organizations typically do not pay for assessments. The CSPs/Government pay for the assessments. Task Area 15 “FedRAMP Authorizations and 3PAO Assessor Services” allows for the issuance of a specific Task Order for Assessment Services. Under this type of task order award, the Government would pay the Assessment organization for the assessment. OCI will be managed at the task order level. No company will be asked to assess its own work or applications developed.
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
12 B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Solicitation+ and B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Attachment+A+-+SOO and B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Attachment+G+-+Prior+Experience+Cover+Sheet 18 of 19 3.4 - Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume 2); 15. - FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services; 10. - 10. Example demonstrates experience in the following Statement of Objective (SOO) areas: Solicitation evaluation criteria states: "The Government will assess its level of confidence the Offeror will be successful in performing the task areas based on its Prior Experience. The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative of up to three (3) examples of contracts performed within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date that clearly demonstrate results showing how each prior experience example correlates to the requirements as described in the SOO."
FedRamp Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services are included in the SOO as well as the Prior Experience Cover Sheet, implying that USDA will assess whether any of the Offeror's provided Prior Experience addresses that scope. In practice, this type of service is generally provided through a commercial contract between the cloud service provider and the 3PAO assessor and rarely include any other scope. The Government does not typically directly fund these services through a direct contract to the assessors.
We recommend that USDA either remove this scope as part of the prior experience evaluation (the scope can still remain in the SOO) or allow offerors the ability to provide a fourth past performance specifically addressing this scope. Task Area 15 “FedRAMP Authorizations and 3PAO Assessor Services” allows for the issuance of a specific Task Order for Assessment Services. Under this type of task order award, the Government would pay the Assessment organization for the assessment. OCI will be managed at the task order level. No company will be asked to assess its own work or applications developed.
USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible.
| 13 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Outside of DISC, will USDA expect to have any other systems go through the FedRAMP ATO Process? | To be determined at the Task Order level. |
| 14 | RFQ | 16 | Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | Can the Cover letter and required documents change between submission phases? For instance, if we add subcontractors to our team, can we modify the cover letter and the releases (if required)? | No. |
Offerors are required to identify all team members within the Phase One submission. The team that is presented in Phase One is the team for all Phases.
15 RFQ 16 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) Please confirm that the teaming arrangements submitted as part of Phase 1 can be revised when submitting Phase 2.
| "If the Offeror is submitting quote as a Joint Venture (JV) or a Prime/Subcontractor team include all specific information detailing all entities that will be a part of the offeror response, the role they will perform and the size standard under which they are submitting a quote." | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |||||
| 16 | B02_RFQ_STRATUS_Pool2_Solicitation | 16 of 19 | 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents | “All Offerors are required to identify the size standard under which they are submitting a quote. If the Offeror is submitting quote as a Joint Venture (JV) or a Prime/Subcontractor team include all specific information detailing all entities that will be a part of the offeror response, the role they will perform and the size standard under which they are submitting a quote.” | ||
| Please confirm that offerors can add teammates after Phase 1, and include them in our updated transmittal letter for the subsequent phases. | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |||||
| 17 | RFQ | 15 | 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents | Will the Government allow Offerors to add additional subcontractors in Phase 2 and Phase 3 who where not identified in the Phase 1 Cover Letter? | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |
| 18 | Pool 2 Solicitation | 9 | 2.5 Solicitation Phases | Can the Government confirm that companies that are not selected for phase 2 will be allowed to join a team where the prime offeror is selected for phase 2 after the phase 1 submission? | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |
| 19 | Pool 2 Solicitation | 9 | 2.5 Solicitation Phases | Can the Government confirm that offerors may continue to add to their team after selection for phase 2, to provide maximum benefit to the Government? | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |
| 20 | Attachment B02 – RFQ Stratus Pool 2 Solicitation | 15 | 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents | Are the teaming partners identified in a Phase One response required to remain the same throughout Phase 2 and Phase 3 or can team members be added or removed between Phases? | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |
| 21 | SOLICITATION NO. 12314423Q0143, Solicitation | page 16 | Section 3, Submission Instructions to Offerors | It states “All Offerors are required to identify the size standard under which they are submitting a quote. If the Offeror is submitting quote as a Joint Venture (JV) or a Prime/Subcontractor team include all specific information detailing all entities that will be a part of the offeror response, the role they will perform and the size standard under which they are submitting a quote.” Is it the USDAs requirement that an offeror’s team be fully established during Phase One and no additional members can be identified beyond those identified during Phase One? | The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |
| 22 | Attachment G | N/A | Item 3 | The Attachment G - Prior Experience Cover Sheet requires offerors to provide the following: "Name of company performing this work." The wording of this requirement suggests that the offeror is still performing the work. The RFQ states: "The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative of up to three (3) examples of contracts performed within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date that clearly demonstrate results showing how each prior experience example correlates to the requirements as described in the SOO." Please confirm that offerors are allowed to provide a prior experience that may have ended within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date. Please also update the sheet to reflect that the work may have been completed (e.g., "Name of company that performed or is performing this work." | USDA confirms that Offerors are allowed to provide a prior experience example that may have ended within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date. See amended Attachment G for additional clarity. | |
| 23 | Attachment G | N/A | Item 7 | The Attachment G - Prior Experience Cover Sheet requires offerors to provide the following: "Current Contract Value." The wording of this requirement suggests that the offeror is still performing the work. The RFQ states: "The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative of up to three (3) examples of contracts performed within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date that clearly demonstrate results showing how each prior experience example correlates to the requirements as described in the SOO." Please confirm that offerors are allowed to provide a prior experience that may have ended within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date. Please also update the sheet to reflect that the work may have been completed (e.g., "Current/Final Contract Value." | USDA confirms that Offerors are allowed to provide a prior experience example that may have ended within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date. See amended Attachment G for additional clarity. | |
| 24 | Attachment G | N/A | Item 9 | The Attachment G - Prior Experience Cover Sheet requires offerors to provide the following: "Approximately how many people are employed under this contract?" The wording of this requirement suggests that the offeror is still performing the work. The RFQ states: "The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative of up to three (3) examples of contracts performed within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date that clearly demonstrate results showing how each prior experience example correlates to the requirements as described in the SOO." Please confirm that offerors are allowed to provide a prior experience that may have ended within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date. Please also update the sheet to reflect that the work may have been completed (e.g., "Approximately how many people are/were employed under this contract?" | USDA confirms that Offerors are allowed to provide a prior experience example that may have ended within the last 5 years from the RFQ release date. See amended Attachment G for additional clarity. | |
| 25 | RFQ | 17 | Paragraph 3 | With relevance, size, and scope being equal across experience references, will the Government evaluate and weigh commercial experience equally to Federal experience? | Offeror is citing information that does not exist in the RFQ. Prior Experience is not limited to Federal contracts (Section 3.4). The USDA will evaluated all quotes in accordance with the terms outlined in the instructions. | |
| 26 | Solicitation | 17 | 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume 2) | In the solicitation, it states "Prior Experience is not limited to Federal contracts, or performance as a prime." While it is not a requirement for prior experience to be performed as a prime contractor or for a federal agency, would the Government consider making prime federal experience preferred to provide higher confidence in an Offeror's ability to lead a program like STRATUS for an agency as large as USDA. | No. | |
| 27 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Solicitation+ | 17 | 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Will the Government provide a fair rating to commercial experience as part of Volume I prior experience? | Yes, see amended Section 3.4 "At least 2 of the Prior Experience examples must be from the proposed prime Offeror, performing as a prime contractor. Prior Experience is not limited to Federal contracts. " | |
| 28 | RFQ Solicitation | 17 | "Verification from client organization may include a phone interview, survey or any other method in the best interest of the Government at the sole discretion of the Government." | Organizations that Keyhole Software has done work with in the past often have policies against providing references. In the event that the team reviewing the quote deems it necessary to request Keyhole provide contact information for a reference, and we are unable to due to the aforementioned policy as well as NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) we have entered into, would it be sufficient for the Keyhole Software Point of Contact to send back a copy of the client's policy against providing references as well as an attestation to the accuracy and fidelity of the information we provided in our prior experience? | Yes, this would be acceptable in the scenario described. | |
| 29 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 9 | 2.5.1 Phase One | What criteria will the Government be using to determine Confidence Ratings? | As described in RFQ Section 4.2 | |
| 30 | RFQ | 18 | 4.5 Confidence Rating Definitions: "confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract" | Can the Government please clarify how prior experience citations will be evaluated for "proposes a sound approach" during Phase 1 in which offerors are describing prior successes rather than proposing a technical approach? | The Phase One evaluation will consider approach within the context of the experience submitted but not in relation to future solutioning approach for Phases Two and Three. | |
| 31 | RFQ | 18 | 4.5 Confidence Rating Definitions | The definition for "high", "some", and "low" confidence includes evaluating that the vendor "proposes a sound approach". A "sound approach" is generally associated with a Management/Technical Approach (Volume 3) rather than Phase One Prior Experience. Will the Government please confirm that "a sound approach" does not apply to Phase One Prior Experience? | The Phase One evaluation will consider approach within the context of the experience submitted but not in relation to future solutioning approach for Phases Two and Three. | |
| 32 | RFQ Solicitation | 18 | 4.5 | Section 4.5 presents confidence ratings that appear to be intended to support Phase 1, however the confidence ratings center on a “proposed approach” that does not apply to relevant experience. Our experience presents what we have done, but does not necessarily reflect what we would propose as our approach for STRATUS Pool 2. Would the Government please replace the confidence table for Phase 1 with ratings more applicable to Relevant Experience? | The Phase One evaluation will consider approach within the context of the experience submitted but not in relation to future solutioning approach for Phases Two and Three. |
No, the Government will not change the confidence ratings definitions.
| 33 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 15 | 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Please confirm that a cover page for volume 2 would not be included in the 10 page limit. | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 34 | SOLICITATION NO. 12314423Q0143, Solicitation | Page 14 | Section 3, Submission Instructions to Offerors | Is it permissible to include a cover page in our Phase One submission, or is it acceptable to begin with a table of contents? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 35 | RFQ | 14 | 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Will the Government allow, and exclude from page count, a title page that includes administrative information such as Solicitation Name, Solicitation Number, Volume Name, Volume Number, Offeror Name and Address, and Authorized Negotiator? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 36 | Pool 2 Solicitation Document | Page 15 of 19 | Phase One ‐ Volumes and Page Limits | Is it acceptable to include a cover page before the table of contents for prior experience, and if so, will it be included in the page count? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 37 | RFQ | 15 | 3.2 | May Offerors include a Title/Cover Page for each volume that is excluded from the page count? Such a page is needed for the statement regarding proprietary proposal information, for instance. | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 38 | B02_RFQ_STRATUS_Pool 2_Solicitation | 15 | Section 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Can the Government please confirm if a Volume cover page is excluded from the page count for Volume 2: Prior Experience? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 39 | RFQ | 15 | Section 3, 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Can the Government please confirm that an offeror can provide a cover page for each Volume? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 40 | RFQ Solicitation | 15 | 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Understood that for Volume 2: Prior Experience a Table of Contents counts as 1 of our 10 allowable pages. Are offerors allowed to include a cover page that does not count against our 10 allowable pages? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 41 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Solicitation+ | 14 | 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Are the Cover Page and Table of Contents excluded from the page limitation? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. |
| 42 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Solicitation+ | 15 of 19 | 3.2 - Volumes and Page Limits | The Government has indicated that Volume 2 is limited to 10 pages, including 1 page for the Table of Contents, and 3 pages for each of the references. |
| Is it acceptable to include a "Cover Page" for the submission document for Volume 2, not included in the 10-page limit. | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. | |||||
| 43 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 15 | Section 3.2 Page Limits | For Phase One, the page limit for Volume 2 is listed as 10 pages. Does this 10 page limit include the cover letter, or is the cover letter in addition to the 10 pages? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. | |
| 44 | RFQ | 14 | Section 3.2 | Can Offerors include a title page outside the page limit for each volume? | RFQ Section 3.2 has been amended to allow a Volume 2 cover page. | |
| 45 | RFQ | 15 | Section 3.3 | Is the Transmittal Cover Letter synonymous with a title page as long as the 3.3 Transmittal Cover Letter items are included? | Yes. | |
| 46 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 16 | 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume 2) |
| "Prior Experience will also be evaluated for accuracy, relevancy, and demonstrated ability of the Offeror..." | Given the Government's emphasis on demonstrated ability and results achieved, please confirm the Government will review and consider CPARS for corresponding prior experiences submitted. | The Government may review CPARS. | ||||
| 47 | RFQ | 7 | 2.2.2. Pool Structure and Rationale | Can you give some more specific examples of professional and technical support services that would be purchased through Pool 3 from the SaaS OEM versus the labor and managed services that will be puchased through Pool 2? Could USDA also decide to purchase these same services through a vendor on Pool 2? | Pool 3 labor services are restricted to those provided by the SaaS OEM (first party). It could be service desk, solutions architects, etc. Pool 2 labor services are for the third party labor services. Pool 3 SaaS OEM labor services cannot be purchased under Pool 2 except if they are an integral part of a managed service offering when necessary and justified depending on the requirements. This is so Pool 3 can be used to aggregate demand for OEM related products and services. | |
| 48 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Solicitation+ | 16 | 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | Can the organization submitting the proposal be submitted by Collaborative Team Arrangement (CTA) ? | A Collaborative Team Arrangement is not a recognized term. Contractor Team Arrangements (CTAs) in accordance with FAR Part 9 is allowed. There are multiple types of CTAs. Offerors are responsible for meeting all response requirements in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, regardless of the type of CTA. | |
| 49 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 17 | 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume 2) | This document states: "At least 2 of the Prior Experience examples must be from the proposed prime Offeror, performing as a prime contractor. Prior Experience is not limited to Federal contracts, or performance as a prime contractor." | ||
| Q: Will the Government allow Contractor Teaming Agreements (CTAs)? If so, does the other Team Member need to provide past performances as a prime? | Contractor Teaming Agreements is not a recognized term. Contractor Team Arrangements (CTAs) in accordance with FAR Part 9 is allowed. There are multiple types of CTAs. Offerors are responsible for meeting all response requirements in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, regardless of the type of CTA. | |||||
| 50 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 14 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting |
| "Submissions shall be single-spaced with a double space between paragraphs, formatted to fit on…" | Will the Government consider allowing single spaces between paragraphs given the two (2) page limitation for prior experience summaries? | Amended Section 3.1 to remove "with a double space between paragraphs". | ||||
| 51 | RFQ | 14 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | RFQ states: "Submissions shall be single-spaced with a double space between paragraphs, formatted to fit on 8.5 by 11 inch paper, have a minimum of one‐inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4‐inch side margins, using no smaller than an 11‐point font for all text to include any text contained in a table or graphic." | ||
| Question: Will the Government allow a 6-point return between paragraphis rather than a double space? | Amended Section 3.1 to remove "with a double space between paragraphs". | |||||
| 52 | RFQ | 14 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Given the page limitation on prior experience, we recommend removing the requirements for double spacing between paragraphs. | Amended Section 3.1 to remove "with a double space between paragraphs". | |
| 53 | Pool 2 Solicitation Document | Page 14 of 19 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Is the double spacing between paragraphs applicable to paragraphs within a table also? | Amended Section 3.1 to remove "with a double space between paragraphs". | |
| 54 | RFQ | 14 | Section 3.2 | The requirements state, "Submissions shall be single‐spaced with a double space between paragraphs." However, the Attachment G “Prior Experience Cover Sheet” is limited to 1 page. Please confirm that we do not need to add double spaces between paragraphs in the Attachment G Cover Sheet that is provided. | Amended Section 3.1 to remove "with a double space between paragraphs". | |
| 55 | Pool 2 Solicitation Document | Page 14 of 19 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Is it possible for the Government to permit a single space between paragraphs? | Amended Section 3.1 to remove "with a double space between paragraphs". | |
| 56 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 9 | Section 2.5.1 Phase One, Step 2 | The RFQ states that offerors not among the most competitive will receive a recommendation not to proceed to Phase Two. Will offerors be provided with any details on why they are not considered competitive? This could help reduce quote development costs. Please elaborate the | No. Offerors will be advised whether they are considered highly competitive and recommended to continue to Phase Two. The advisory down-select process is designed to limit development costs for Offerors that are not competitive for award. |
The last sentence is incomplete.
| 57 | RFQ | - | - | How does Stratus play into USDA's overarching Enterprise Architecture | STRATUS will be the vehicle(s) of choice for USDA's future work designed to create an enterprise approach to data, tools and platforms. |
| 58 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 16 | 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | The list of additional documents includes " Offerors will be required to submit written proof of their entity affiliations and release from all subcontractors/teaming partners, etc.". 1) Will the SAM.gov report suffice for the entity affiliation? 2) Would the Government please clarify what elements of information are needed for the sub/partner release? | 1) No. SAM.gov report does not suffice for entity affiliation. |
2) See revised RFQ Section 3.3.
| 59 | RFQ | 16 | 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience | Many companies are structured with multiple divisions or multiple legal entities that individually perform Prime Contracts but fall under a broader corporate umbrella. Recognizing such corporate structures exist across the industry, the procurement rules and numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of sister subsidiary companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the sister subsidiary (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018; holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company), and Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Comp. Gen. Feb.6, 2014; holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of affiliates). Will the Government allow the use of affiliate/sister experience in the 2 prior experiences as the prime experience? | The solicitation does not prohibit an Offeror from submitting affiliate/sister experience. The Offeror is responsible for complying with applicable rules and regulations when submitting such experience. |
| 60 | B02_RFQ_STRATUS_Pool 2_Solicitation | 16 | Section 3: Submission Instrucrtions to Offerors 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume2) | Many companies are structured with multiple divisions or multiple legal entities that individually perform Prime Contracts but fall under a broader corporate umbrella. Recognizing such corporate structures exist across the industry, the procurement rules and numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of affiliate companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018)(holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company), and Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Comp. Gen. Feb.6, 2014)(holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of affiliates). Defining an Offeror to include its affiliates and evaluating the past performance of affiliates benefits the Government by increasing the pool of competitors, which in turn likely leads to more innovative proposals, more robust technical solutions, and lower prices. Further, the agency will receive access to the resources, tools, and other valuable skills that an offeror’s affiliate and broader organization can contribute to contract performance. |
| Would the Government please confirm that the Offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and experience of an affiliate company? | The solicitation does not prohibit an Offeror from submitting the experience of an affiliate. The Offeror is responsible for complying with applicable rules and regulations when submitting such experience. | ||
| 61 | NA | Background: Many companies are structured with multiple divisions or multiple legal entities that individually perform Prime Contracts but fall under a broader corporate umbrella. Recognizing such corporate structures exist across the industry, the procurement rules and numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of sister subsidiary companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the sister subsidiary (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018) (holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of a sister subsidiary), and Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Comp. Gen. Feb.6, 2014) (holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of sister subsidiaries). |
| Question: Would the Government please confirm that the Offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and corporate experience of a sister subsidiary company as prime so long as the Offeror demonstrates how the resources of the sister subsidiary will meaningfully contribute to the performance of the opportunity? | The solicitation does not prohibit an Offeror from submitting sister subsidiary experience. The Offeror is responsible for complying with applicable rules and regulations when submitting such experience. | |||||
| 62 | As vendors, we are trying to identify prioritization and weight among all SOO objectives. Could the Government please specify whether all objective have the same priority or whether some are more important than others? | All SOO objectives are equally important for the goals of Pool 2. | ||||
| 63 | RFQ Solicitation | 17 | 3.4 | The RFQ states that "Prior Experience will also be evaluated for accuracy, relevancy and demonstrated ability…" It also indicates that "demonstrate achieving cost savings, increasing business performance, adding innovation, and using modern/current innovative tools and methodologies." Will the Government please provide relevant evaluation criteria to evaluate Phase 1: Prior Experience? | RFQ Section 4.2 describes the Phase One evaluation. | |
| 64 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 16 | Section 3.4 Phase One Prior Experience | The RFQ states USDA is interested in current/modern tools and methodologies. Can you provide examples of specific modern tools and methodologies USDA would like to see in prior experience? | Pool 2 SOO covers a broad range of capabilities and expertise. There are numerous modern tools and methods related to the scope of Pool 2. USDA does not wish to limit vendor's response to a particular area. | |
| 65 | BO2 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitatiion | 3 | 1.4 Due Date and Deliver | Would the Government extend the proposal Phase 1 due date to 5 business days beyond the delivery of answers to questions, if delayed, to allow offerors to incorporate answers into their proposal? | See amended RFQ Section 1.4.1 for updated Phase One due date. | |
| 66 | In order to provide adequate time for offerors to prepare their best possible responses, would the Government please extend the Phase 1 deadline to 10/23? | See amended RFQ Section 1.4.1 for updated Phase One due date. | ||||
| 67 | Cover Letter / MEMORANDUM FOR ALL ELIGIBLE CONTRACTORS | 1 | Paragraph 2 | To provide the most detailed and comprehensive response possible, we respectfully request a two-week (10 business days) extension to October 30, 2023, would the Government agree to grant this extension? Could the Government also provide an estimate when questions will be answered, and issue an extension, if granted, 72 hours before the current due date? | See amended RFQ Section 1.4.1 for updated Phase One due date. | |
| 68 | RFQ, Solicitation | 3 | Section 1.4 | We request the Government to extend the submission date of Phase 1 for atleast one week. | See amended RFQ Section 1.4.1 for updated Phase One due date. | |
| 69 | RFQ, Solicitation | 3 | Section 1.4 | We request the Government to extend the submission date of Phase 1 for atleast one week. | See amended RFQ Section 1.4.1 for updated Phase One due date. | |
| 70 | RFQ Solicitation | 16 | "Date submitted and quote expiration date. Quote must be certified to be good for 180 days from | |||
| closing date of RFQ" | The notice 12314423Q0143 on SAM.gov lists the Date Offers Due as Oct 16, 2023 5 PM Eastern. We are curious if that date is what is meant in the RFQ Solicitation when it refers to "closing date of RFQ" | Yes. | ||||
| 71 | RFQ | - | - | Is a TS FCL desirable | A TS FCL is not required at this time. Should it become a requirement, the Government will issue a DD254. | |
| 72 | General | Genral | General | Is there any clearance requirements of this task order | At present, a Public Trust is required. Should it become a requirement, the Government will issue a DD254. | |
| 73 | General | Genral | General | Is there any specific file naming convention required | See amended RFQ Section 3.2. Files shall use the following naming convention, RFQ# + Phase # + Volume + Offeror Name. | |
| 74 | RFQ | 14 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Given the limited space to cover numerous key areas in the prior experience summaries, can the Government reduce the font size requirement for graphics to 9 pt? | See amended Section 3.1 to allow for 8-point font for graphics only. Tables remain at 11-point font. | |
| 75 | RFQ | 14 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | RFQ states: "Submissions shall be single-spaced with a double space between paragraphs, formatted to fit on 8.5 by 11 inch paper, have a minimum of one‐inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4‐inch side margins, using no smaller than an 11‐point font for all text to include any text contained in a table or graphic." | ||
| Question: Will the Government allow no smaller than an 8-point font for tables and graphics keeping them legible? | See amended Section 3.1 to allow for 8-point font for graphics only. Tables remain at 11-point font. | |||||
| 76 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation.pdf | 14 | 3.1 Guidelines and Formatting | No specific "Font Type" is provided/stated. Is there a Font we are supposed to use on the response? | No. | |
| 77 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment F - Labor Categories | NA | General | Could you please specify, why is the list of labor categories provided. Is there any requirement related to this, because we could not find any details in relation to the labor categories in the soliciation documents | Labor Categories and Pricing will be established at the Task Order level. The labor categories are a representative sample of the type of labor that may be used under Pool 2. The list of labor categories is not comprehensive. Task orders have the flexibility to require other labor categories that are within the broad scope of Pool 2. | |
| 78 | B02 RFQ STRATUS POOL 2 Attachment F | N/A | N/A | Labor categories don’t seem to account for assessment and authorization personnel. Is there a reason why? | The labor categories are a representative sample of the type of labor that may be used under Pool 2. The list of labor categories is not comprehensive. Task orders have the flexibility to require other labor categories that are within the broad scope of Pool 2. | |
| 79 | General | General | We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. | This is a new opportunity. | ||
| 80 | RFQ | 17-19 | Section 4: Quote Evaluation Criteria | Given the provided evaluation criteria where each phase has only three possible scoring factors (high confidence, some confidence, and low confidence), and price is not being considered for this procurement, how will the Government treat ties in technical scores when determining the awardees of the approximately 25 BOAs? | Offeror responses will be evaluated holistically across all factors and confidence ratings to determine the most capable companies as described in Section 5 in the RFQ. |
For purposes of this RFQ, “most capable” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (Section 5.2).
The Government is not using a numerical scoring system for this acquisition.
| 81 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Solicitation+.pdf | 18 | 4.7 | Could the Government please specify the timeframe within which Offerors can expect these notices after each evaluation phase? | Advisory notices will be sent out upon the conclusion of the evaluation of each phase. |
| 82 | RFQ, Attachment X, or Other | 3 | Due Date and Delivery | What is the estimated time frame for Phase Two and Phase Three? | Advisory notices and instructions for the next phase will be sent out upon the conclusion of the evaluation of each phase. |
| 83 | RFQ | - | - | Given that DISC supports over 20 agencies, would DISC value vendors that support 10+ agencies | As described in the solicitation, the evaluation will look for experience across the scope of the SOO, not necessarily the quantity of organizations supported. |
| 84 | Attachment A - SOO | 2 | 3. Cloud and Platform Architecture | Could the Government please specify what cloud platforms are part of scope for the BOA? | As this is a 10-year PoP, there are no cloud platforms that are necessarily out of scope for Pool 2. |
| 85 | RFQ | 9 | 2.5 Solicitation Phases | In order for contractors to properly prepare resources, can the Government provide an estimated high-level timeline of this total acquisition process? | BOA executions are expected in Spring 2024. |
| 86 | BO2 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitatiion | 15 | 3.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Please confirm that offerors should submit the "Volume 1: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents" and the "Volue 2: Prior Experience" as two separate files. | Confirmed. See Section 3.2 of the RFQ. |
| 87 | RFQ | 16 | Section 3, 3.4 Phase One: Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Can the Government confirm that offerors may demonstrate relevant experience to the SOO task areas collectively across its prior reference contract summaries? | Confirmed. |
| 88 | RFQ | 16 | 3.3 Phase One: Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | Please confirm there are no page limitations for required attachments. |
| "Additional Required Documents (each to be submitted as attachments to the Cover Letter at each phase of the evaluation)" | Confirmed. See Section 3.2 of the RFQ. | |||||
| 89 | RFQ | 9 | 2.5.1 Phase One | When does the Government anticipate providing Phase One Advisory Down-Select Notices? | Advisory notices will be sent out upon the conclusion of the evaluation of each phase. | |
| 90 | Attachment B02 – RFQ Stratus Pool 2 Solicitation | 9 | Step 2: Advisory Down‐Select | Reference: Each Offeror will receive an advisory notification. Offerors who were not among the most competitive will not be recommended to proceed to Phase Two. | ||
| Question: Will the Government provide an estimated time frame when offerors should expect to receive an advisory notification? | Advisory notices will be sent out upon the conclusion of the evaluation of each phase. | |||||
| 91 | General Question | Following award for each of the pools, will Pool 2 awardees be responsible for Pool 1 and Pool 3 procurements as system integrators? | It depends on the requirements at the Task Order level. A project/program can choose a Pool 2 provider as the integrator for their Pool 1 and/or 3 product and service delivery, while another project/program may already have an integrator or may not need one. | |||
| 92 | RFQ | #9 | Phase 1 Prior Experience | Can the Government please clarify if each citation is required to cover all 16 Statement of Objective (SOO) Areas, or if the 3 citations in aggregate must cover the 16 SOO Areas | USDA expects to see experience across as many task areas as possible, but understands that offeror experience varies. Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate experience in as many task areas as possible. | |
| 93 | B02 RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Solicitation | 18 | 4.6 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors |
"Prior Experience is more important than Technical Evaluation (which consists of both Management/Technical Approach and Solution Abstract). Technical Evaluation is more important than Oral Presentation with Technical Demonstration." Later phases of multi-phased procurements are typically weighed as more important than earlier phases based on acquisition best practices from FAI, GSA, DHS, and DoD. This order of importance helps to streamline the evaluations to distinguish the most capable offerors and assist the Government in conducting a thorough assessment of an Offeror’s capabilities, solutions, and approaches to support the BOA. Oral Presentation with Technical Demonstration is the most complex portion of the acquisition process and provides the Government the greatest opportunity to differentiate amongst the most capable Offerors.
Would the Government please consider reordering the relative importance of the evaluation factors to the following:
| "Oral Presentation with Technical Demonstration is more important than Technical Evaluation (which consists of both Management/Technical Approach and Solution Abstract). Technical Evaluation is more important than Prior Experience." | No. | |||||
| 94 | Solicitation | 8 | 2.3 | The Government says that award will be made to "20 restricted firms." Has the Government determined the target number of awards per set-aside category (e.g. 8(a), SDVOSB, HUBzone, SB, WOSB)? | No. The Government does not have targets for the number of set-aside categories. | |
| 95 | Attachment B02 – RFQ Stratus Pool 2 Solicitation | N/A | General | Question: If a Prime offeror has been down-selected to participate in Phase Two, would the Government allow adding additional subcontractors to participate in Phase Two response? | No. The team presented in Phase One must be the same throughout all Phases of the BOA award evaluation. | |
| 96 | RFQ | 11 | 2.7.1 Size Standards | Are there any limitations on Small Businesses (Restricted Track) subcontracting to a Large Business? | No. | |
| 97 | RFQ (B02 RFQ Stratus Pool 2 Solicitation) | Page 19 of 19 | Section 4.8 | Do Offerors need to put an NDA in place directly with ViaTrie, LLC? | No. ViaTrie LLC has an NDA with the USDA. | |
| 98 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Attachment+A+-+SOO | 2 | B02+RFQ+STRATUS+Pool+2+Attachment+A+-+SOO | Can the Government provide a list of existing cloud technologies and services in production across USDA? | No. Cloud technologies will evolve significantly over the period of performance. | |
| 99 | RFQ | 3 | 1.4 Due Date and Delivery | After the Phase 1 submission, when does the Government plan on releasing down select information? | Advisory notices will be sent out upon the conclusion of the evaluation of each phase. | |
| 100 | RFQ | 16 | Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | Will awardees be able to on and off ramp teammates over the course of the period of performance? | Offerors may add teammates at the TO level to meet TO requirements. | |
| 101 | Attachment G | 1 | Attachment G | Please update Attachment G to include the Project's Government point of contact (or their representative) with full name, title, email address, and phone number. | See amended Attachment G. | |
| 102 | RFQ | 4 | 2.1.2 | The second sentence in this paragraph appears to have a typo or missing words in the bolded part: "Silos have been raised between the various customer cloud and service implementations, causing a lack of visibility and negated scalability, metric collection, and an inability to realize a cohesively to create an enterprise architecture." Can the Government provide the corrected version of this sentence? | See amended RFQ Section 2.1.2. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .