RFP 12SAD120R0016 RD App Sus O_M- Amendment 0012.pdf

RFP 12SAD120R0016 RD Application Sustainment Operations & Maintenance - Amendment 0012

Amendment 0012 is to provide responses for newly submitted Vendor questions.

Question 68 Pg # 2 The government projects a base period start date of September 30, 2020 with proposals being due on September 17th; the government has also identified the anticipated award date as September 28th. While it is appreciated that the government intends to review and award quickly, does the government expect fully staffed AND BADGED operational controls by the awardee(s) on that date (September 30th)?

USDA Response: No. Awardee is expected to work with the COR to navigate the Onboarding process as fast as possible. We understand that some of the duties of Onboarding are USDA’s responsibility.

Question 69 Pg # 6 II.1 Introduction The government identifies four (4) primary Focus Areas, and additionally provides what appears to be an initial Task order (TO) supporting FA 2; is this representative of the government’s intent to release TO’s specific to support each individual FA, or will TO’s be spread across multiple FA’s?

USDA Response: Task orders may encompass one or more of the CLINS (FA areas).

Question 70 Pg # 9 II.5 Place(s) of Performance The section states performance at authorized vendor locations but provides addresses for two USDA RD sites (government addresses), and unspecified customer sites. Is the word “vendor” used in respect to place of performance meant to define contractor-controlled spaces/sites for work performance?

USDA Response: Obtaining a response that will be posted in near future via another Amendment.

Question 71 Pg # 14 II.19 Constraints or Assumptions Can the government provide a copy of the USDA Web Design Standards as this is identified as a constraint or assumption for awardees?

Question 72 Pg # 15 III.1 FA 1: RD App Helpdsk What incident management tracking systems are in place for use (ex. Remedy, etc.) or will the awardee be expected to provide these capabilities in-house?

Question 73 Pg # 16 What are the government definitions or interpretations of the meaning of “service request” and “incident” (or issue)?

Question 74 Pg # 16 Will the government provide 2-3 examples representative case examples of a potential service request and incident/issue for clarity in understanding, and assign a representative priority level to each for offerors to correlate?

Question 75 Pg # 16 Who is the authoritative decision point on escalation or priority level assignments?

Question 76 Pg # 16 What are the historical FTE staffing levels for help desk operations over the past two years?

Question 77 Pg # 17 What are the reported historical Time-to-Restore (ToR) time periods for Tier 1, 2, and 3 level tickets on average?

Question 78 Pg # 23 III.2 FA 2: PAO What are the historical numbers associated with each of the defined Defect Priority Level categories in terms of incidents per annual period?

Question 79 Pg # 32 IDIQ Pricing Guidance Are each of the identified FA Team Member staffing numbers based on dedicated member roles?

Question 80 For the qualified Technical Evaluators that will assist the Contracting Officer in submission evaluations, what are the steps being taken by the government to ensure that OCI pr personal conflicts of interest are not involved in final determinations? (Examples… a seated Technical Evaluator who has either offers or promises of employment with a potential awardee, or an Evaluator with personal or professional relationship with a potential awardee).

USDA Response: Internally steps are taken to ensure to the best of our ability procurement integrity. For instance: Each Evaluator is nominated by the head of the Technology Department.

Each Evaluator is required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as well as a Source Selection participation agreement that includes OCI and penalties for falsifying information on the agreement. And, the CO as well as the MASCO will be personally reviewing all evaluations and will ensure an appropriate award that is fair and in the best interests of the USDA.

Question 81 Are CPAR reports acceptable in lieu of the past performance questionnaire formats?

USDA Response: No. Please review the proposals instructions again.

Question 82 We have customers who have completed CPAR reports, and who are not willing to complete additional performance documentation on the basis that they have provided government-documented performance marks via that system; will the government provide guidance on how we should approach this as a situation in meeting the identified proposal requirements?

USDA Response: You may provide that as your response, and that you have no clients that will participate in completing a Client Evaluation Form. However, please note that most CORs or COs will complete one if they have time.

Question 83 Will the government accept a statement that all representations and certifications are up to date/currently maintained via the SAM website in lieu of a fully completed 52.219-1 reps/certs package?

USDA Response: No, sorry. Please include it in PRICE PROPOSAL – Section Two. See updated PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION dated 9-3-2020 posted separately to Beta.Sam.gov.

Question 84 Is the Service Contract Act applicable under the terms and roles requested for this solicitation?

USDA Response: Yes. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to review its proposed employee roles that will be employed during administration of this contract and its tasks orders in context of the Service Contract Act for potential labor categories covered under the SCA.

For instance, read https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/cms_019845.aspx You may want to contact your legal advisor to provide you more information.

FAR 52.222-41 and FAR 52.222-43 are included clauses in this acquisition that will carry over to the contract and all Task Orders issued thereof.

Additionally, two SCA wage determinations for the government locations are attached to the RFP. Before the contract is fully executed, other location SCA wage determinations will be incorporated into the conformed contract and its attachments based on the potential awardee’s proposed locations.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/pages/cms_019845.aspx

The USDA will incorporate wage determinations at the task order level, as applicable, based on locations specified by the Awardee wherein Awardee’s employees that may be employees covered under SCA will be performing task order tasks.

The contractor will be responsible for ensuring that its personnel subject to the SCA meet or exceed the corresponding minimum wages established by the Department of Labor (DoL) for the corresponding region (State/county) in which the task order is performed.

USDA will not be liable for any increased costs as a result of the Contractor’s failure to identify SCA categories or failure to pay minimum wages established by DoL.

Question 85 Are there any current staff level roles or job functions that are identified and compensated under the Service Contract Act requirements and associated DOL Wage Determination guidance?

USDA Response: I am not the Contracting Officer for the current contact and do not have access to that information.

For this acquisition, Offerors are not being directed as to what staff roles to propose in their proposals. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to review its proposed employee roles in context of the Service Contract Act for potential labor categories covered under the SCA.

Question 86 Will the government please identify any SCA-based labor functions in terms of total number of SCA staff per FA, and the associated DOL labor classification code for the position(s)?

USDA Response: No. For this acquisition, Offerors are not being directed as to what staff roles to propose in their proposals. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to review its proposed employee roles in context of the Service Contract Act for potential labor categories covered under the SCA.

Question 87 Will the government explain the purpose or intent of TO 01? the task states that the contractor will onboard personnel who will be performing duties and tasks under FA 2: PSO (O&M). Do we need to address anything in this as part of the proposal response elements?

USDA Response: The purpose and intent of TO 01 is to provide the context of the first ask Order. The IDIQ Awardee will be responsible for providing Onboarding information and following Onboarding instructions contained in the RFP attachments, which will also become part of the contract and follow down to all issued Task Orders.

Offerors do not need to address anything in TO 01 at this time.

Question 88 How does the government want offerors to sign and acknowledge the offers and amendment materials? Does the government intend to provide SF1449 or SF33 forms for actual signage, or will the government accept a statement that we acknowledge the solicitation and amendment documents?

USDA Response: Since we are not utilizing a SF1449 or SF33, as per FAR instructions, please just include a statement that (whoever the authorized signatory is) acknowledges the solicitation RFP 12SAD120R0016, and its attachments, and Amendment documents one through (xxx whatever number we end with) and is providing this proposal in response to the aforementioned RFP. Include a statement that your company’s proposal is valid for 120 days. Make sure the page is signed and dated by the by the owner or authorized representative who is named in the document, and that persons, title and contact information in included in the document.

Please make sure your company has read all the Amendments and responded accordingly within your company’s proposal.

Question 89 What are the staffing levels by FA between each of the two specified locations (NCR and St. Louis, MO)? Are the same work requirements (by the PWS) supported in both locations?

USDA Response: This information is not available. Additionally, it is not relevant as Offerors are being provided the freedom to propose their own staffing levels at any location. Most of the tasks can be completely remotely anywhere in the USA as the work is virtually compliable.

Question 90 Regarding Task Order 1, which will be awarded with the IDIQ contract:

1) FA2 currently, or traditionally has 18 people assigned. Does this award mean that after transition, the new contractor will be fully responsible for FA2, Production Support Operations?

USDA Response: No. Task Order one is so the Awardee can begin the Onboarding process for its staff that will be supporting FA2 when future Task Orders are issued.

2) If so, what is the government’s expectation for transition including the possibility of incumbent hire? 4-weeks? 8-weeks? 0-weeks?

USDA Response: Currently, Onboarding a contractor employee is taking up to 45 days.

3) If TO#1 is not the full Functional area, is there a definition of work associated with Task

Order #1?

USDA Response: The Task is for the Awardee to begin Onboarding its staff so it will have staff in place for future Task Orders issued under FA2.

Question 91 Regarding transition, is there a desired schedule for the contract awardee to transition all work associated with this contract? Especially for the four functional areas?

USDA Response: As soon as possible.

Question 92 Regarding clearances for the technical staff assigned to this contract, what citizenship status is acceptable for assignment to this contract?

Question 93 According to the current staffing levels you communicated in an earlier amendment, there are 69 people assigned to the delivery of the four task areas. Is all the work identified in the RFP/PWS being accomplished by the 69 staff you identified? Is there any additional work being completed by the 69 which is NOT covered by the PWS?

Question 94 We really like the approach taken by the USG to answer questions as they come

in. We have two thoughts for your consideration after the question deadline is passed:

1) We would like one amendment to post one file containing all the questions (they can be in the same order in which you answered them) and we would recommend a clean RFP to be posted. We would like it to include “change tracking” but will understand if it does not.

USDA Response: I’m not sure who the USG is? If you mean me, thank you!

An Amendment containing all the questions in one file will not be posted.

A ‘clean’ RFP will not be posted as there has not been very much information in the RFP that has changed except for the Proposal instructions sections.

I will post an updated ‘clean’ version of the PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION dated 9-3-2020 to Beta.SAM.gov

2) With the new amendment recommended, which would probably come out on the 8th or 9th of September, we would respectfully request an extension of at least one week and preferably two for proposal submission.

USDA Response: Sorry, but I have not received concurrence to extend the proposal due date. We are working diligently to respond to all questions asap.

Question 95 We appreciate your consideration of the 8(a) Joint Venture being qualified to submit a proposal and each company’s past performance qualifying. We have an 8(a) JV in place and are in the process of adding this USDA project to the JV’s list of qualified contracts. It may not be fully approved by the time of submission but will be for award. Do you have any issue with this timeline?

USDA Response: per the requirements of the SBA, we will work with the SBA in its approval process.

Note however, USDA is on a time crunch with this requirement, and may not be able to extend more than the 5 days required to be provided to the SBA for approval. See below:

13 CFR §124.507 What procedures apply to competitive 8(a) procurements?

…. (b) (3) Where the apparent successful offeror is a joint venture and SBA has not approved the joint venture prior to receiving notification of the apparent successful offeror, review of the joint venture will be part of the eligibility determination conducted under this paragraph (b). If SBA cannot approve the joint venture within 5 days of receiving a procuring activity's request for an eligibility determination, and the procuring activity does not grant additional time for review, SBA will be unable to verify the eligibility of the joint venture for award.

Question 96 P.1 states “Offerors are to include a completed copy of the provision at 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items, with its offer.” P.48 requests

“Representations & Certifications.” Will the government allow a statement indicating that SAM is updated and correct and that the “Offeror has represented that it “does not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services as a part of its offered products or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract, or other contractual instrument” in the provision at 52.204-26,” instead of including the entire Representations & Certifications in the proposal?

USDA Response:

For Offerors that have completed SAM and its SAM is updated (which should be all Offerors) you may substitute the following in place of including the entire 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items and For 52.204-26, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services-Representation:

“Required excerpt of 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications- Commercial Items.”

(b) (1) Annual Representations and Certifications. Any changes provided by the Offeror in paragraph (b)(2) of this provision do not automatically change the representations and certifications in SAM

(2) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically in SAM accessed through http://www.sam.gov. After reviewing SAM information, the Offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items, have been entered or updated in the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard(s) applicable to the NAICS code(s) referenced for this solicitation), at the time this offer is submitted and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201), except for paragraphs [Offeror to identify the applicable paragraphs at (c) through (v) of this provision that the offeror has completed for the purposes of this solicitation only, if any.

These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer.

Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted electronically on SAM.]

(v) Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services-Representation. Section 889(a)(1)(A) of Public Law 115-232.

(1) The Offeror shall review the list of excluded parties in the System for Award Management (SAM) (https://www.sam.gov) for entities excluded from receiving federal awards for “covered telecommunications equipment or services”.

(2) The Offeror represents that it □ does, □ does not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services as a part of its offered products or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract, or other contractual instrument.

(End of Required excerpt of 52.212-3 Provision)

For 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. – please follow instructions and include in full in this section.

The above two certifications can be included in PRICE PROPOSAL – Section Two

TAB A.

See updated PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION dated 9-3-2020 posted to Beta.SAM.gov

Question 97 Please provide any service level objectives (SLOs) for FA1 (help desk), including historical Average Handle Time (AHT), Average Speed of Answer (ASA), Abandonment rate, First call resolution rate.

Question 98 Please confirm if the USDA is providing the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tool for FA1 (help desk).

Question 99 Please confirm the incumbent will transition all existing training materials and documentation related to FA1 (help desk) during transition.

Question 100 Please identify the timing for when FA1 (help desk) must be operational, if different than the system transition timeline.

Question 101 Will the Government consider giving preference to 8(a) firms that are also HUBZone in order to support agency goals?

USDA Response: Sadly, I am not authorized by our Compliance Review Department to afford preference on this acquisition to 8(a) firms that are also HUBZone.

Question 102 For how long should bidder declare their proposals valid? Would the USDA like bidders to use a standard “Quotes are valid for 120 calendar days”?

USDA Response: An Offeror is to affirm that its proposal is valid for 120 days. 😊😊

Question 103 Within the PWS: are the Help Desk and PSO functions expected to determine the incident categorization and manage/act on the data?

Question 104 Please confirm a contractor-owned facility located near a USDA location may be favorably evaluated under multiple factors, such as Program Management Objective, Technical Qualifications and Experience, and Management Approach factors.

USDA Response: Since much of the tasks can be completed virtually, and/or a contractor could rent a facility near an USDA facility and/or fly its staff in, etc... just because a Contractor owns a facility located near a USDA location will not come into play as part of the evaluation criteria. In other words, it will not affect the evaluation if a Contractor owns a facility located near a USDA location.

Question 105 Will the Government confirm that no pricing for TO1 is required from the Offeror?

USDA Response: Yes, confirmed.

Question 106 Will the Government confirm which CLINs the Offeror is required to provide payment/milestone schedules for?

USDA Response: All.

Question 107 The RFP states:

• Sub-Section 2: “Future invoice payments will be dependent on the Vendor’s Deliverables-Schedule Pricing. However, there is not a precise deliverable breakdown format required.”

• “The above format/template must be followed when developing the TIA Attachment 3/Milestone Schedule, to ensure consistent and accurate tracking of deliverables and invoices”

Will the Government confirm that the offeror can or cannot edit the format of the RFP - provided sample Milestone Schedule?

USDA Response: Great question! I apologize for leaving that Note section on the Sample Milestone / Payment Schedule unedited. Please ignore the “Please Note” section on the “SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS / PAYABLE MILESTONES SAMPLE”. The “SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS / PAYABLE MILESTONES SAMPLE” is just an example. It is not a required format for the Vendor’s Deliverables-Schedule Pricing.

Question 108 This section states “Provide your Offer Signed and dated by the by the owner or authorized representative, with acknowledgement of all amendments”. We find no solicitation forms to sign. Are we to simply provide a cover letter? Proposal format, TAB A. Page 48 USDA Response: USDA Response: Since we are not utilizing a SF1449 or SF33, as per FAR instructions, please just include a statement that (whoever the authorized signatory is) acknowledges the solicitation RFP 12SAD120R0016, and its attachments, and Amendment documents one through (xxx whatever number we end with) and is providing this proposal in response. Make sure the page is signed and dated by the by the owner or authorized representative who is named in the document, and that persons, title and contact information in included in the document. Please make sure your company has read all the Amendments and responded accordingly within your company’s proposal.

Question 109 Graphics are extremely important for the evaluators’ understanding of our approach and good graphics require space. May we present an 8.5x11” page in landscape format if used solely for a wide table or graphic? QUOTE/PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL AND AWARD INFORMATION, page 47 USDA Response: Yes, Offerors may present an 8.5x11” page in landscape format if used solely for a wide table or graphic.

Question 110 On Pg 34 of the RFP, “The following is an example of what may be addressed in the contractor’s technical quote proposal” the table shows firm-fixed price (1-month), does the agency require price along with skillset in technical response? Skillset Table, Page 34 USDA Response: No.

Question 111 For FA2, & FA3, can the agency provide additional break down different roles (developer’s, testers, DB Admins, Analysts) out of 18 and 31 team members? IDIQ Pricing guidance, page 32.

Question 112 Does the government want a separate Deliverables-Schedule Pricing chart for each CLIN, or one consolidated chart? RFP Pricing subsection 2 USDA Response: While not required, a separate Deliverables-Schedule Pricing chart for each CLIN may be more understandable.

Question 113 Will the government please provide the current incumbent contract and task order number?

USDA Response: The incumbent for a similar contract is ASRC Federal, 11091 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 700, Reston, VA 20190.

Prior Similar Contracts #

Vendor Name: Type of Contract

12SAD120D0002 ASRC FEDERAL DATA

NETWORX LLC

Firm-Fixed-Price

1231ME18D0003 ASRC FEDERAL DATA

SOLUTIONS LLC

Firm-Fixed-Price

AG31MEC150021 ATTAIN, LLC Firm-Fixed-Price

Question 114 The current incumbent key personnel are prohibited from signing a contingent offer letter, putting potential bidders at a disadvantage. Will the Government consider removing this requirement?

USDA Response: Obtaining Clarity on this question and will provide a response that will be posted in near future via another Amendment.

Question 115 Can the Government confirm that Tab A (General Information) in Volume I is NOT subject to any page limitations, i.e. that it is outside of the total page limit for the Volume?

USDA Response: Yes, TAB A Section One is not subject to any page limitations.

Question 116 Can the Government kindly confirm whether any SCA Labor is currently employed in support of this contract?

USDA Response: This is a Request for Proposals that includes a PWS. It is not a contract.

If you are referring to other contracts that may be providing support for the various tasks associated with this PWS, I am not the Contracting Officer for any current contact(s) that provide support for the various tasks associated within the RFP at hand and do not have access to information such as requested for any other current contract.

For this acquisition, Offerors are not being directed as to what staff roles to propose in their proposals. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to review its proposed employee roles in context of the Service Contract Act for potential labor categories covered under the SCA.

Question 117 Per Amendment 0005, the updated page limitations placed on each Factor for the Technical/Past Performance Volume equate to a 40-page total limit, as opposed to the initial 35-page limit set for the response. Can the Government confirm that Volume I (Tech/Past Performance) can now total 40 pages instead of 35?

USDA Response: Amendment 0008 updated PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION document to consolidate all changes to those instructions based on Offeror questions and requests to date 9-2.

An updated PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION dated 9-3- 2020 is posted to Beta.SAM.gov

The individual Factor page limits per Amendment 0008 dated Sept 2, 2020 are as follows:

Factor 1: no page count Factor 2: Program’s Management Plan Objective (5-page max) Factor 3: Technical Approach (20-page max) Factor 4: Technical Qualifications and Experience (10-page max) Factor 5: Management Approach and Key personnel (10-page max) Factor 6: Quality Control Plan (5-page max) Factor 7: Past Performance. (10-page max)

Question 118 P.34. “7. IDIQ Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure.” Are these the tables that should be followed for the Pricing Spreadsheet and files?

USDA Response: Yes. 😊😊

Question 119 P.34. “7. IDIQ Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure.” Are the listed FA SET Team Systems the only ones that need to be priced and at the listed percentages?

Question 120 P.34. “IDIQ PRICING GUIDANCE AND CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBER (CLIN) STRUCTURE.” The government provided an example table which included Focus Area 3 Team. Is the government expecting the offeror to provide a similar table in the Pricing Proposal for each Focus Area to include LCATS for each position?

USDA Response: The example table is not required for any of the FA’s. It was only a suggestion.

However, if an Offeror wants to include such a table for each FA, they are welcome to do so.

Question 121 Are Cloud and DevOps services currently established at Rural Development?

Question 122 Current support hours are listed as 9-5. Does this include the Tier 1, 2 and 3 Service Desks?

Question 123 Are Service Desk agents expected to be ITIL foundations certified?

Question 124 Due to the Labor Day Holiday and need for answers to questions, will the government extend the proposal due date?

USDA Response: No, sorry we do not have leadership approval to extend the due date as USDA is attempting to have this awarded prior to the end of FY20.

Question 125 As allowed by FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and enforced by GAO ruling B-407917.2, please confirm the Government will accept past performance from predecessor and sister companies. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) which states the evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. GAO decision IAP World Services, Inc;

EMCOR Government Services, Inc., B-407917.2 et al (July 10, 2013), ruled that “[a]n agency may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or sister subsidiary company to an offeror where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or sister subsidiary will affect the performance of the offeror.”

USDA Response: I have thoroughly analyzed FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and GAO ruling B-407917.2 https://www.gao.gov/products/B-407917.2,B-407917.3,B-407917.4,B-407917.5,B-407917.6,B- 407917.7 The Past Performance evaluation process will take into account predecessor companies, providing all DUNS and legal documentation is proffered to provide a factual accounting that demonstrates that the “new” company (Offeror’s company) has bought out or taken over the predecessor company/companies. In other words where the predecessor company/companies have been legally absorbed by the ‘new’ company.

Per Key personnel, as long as the Key Personnel is part of the Prime entity or Prime entities proposing (JVs), consideration will be afforded. Key Personnel of other companies will not be taken into consideration.

Past performance or Experience of a parent or sister subsidiary company or separate corporate affiliates will not be taken into account for any Offeror. USDA is contracting with the Offeror as Prime, not a parent or sister subsidiary company.

Past Performance and experience of Subcontractors will not be taken into consideration.

USDA evaluators will apply the same standards for each proposal and will not engage in disparate treatment towards any Offeror like the actions that took place in IAP World Services, Inc;

EMCOR Government Services, Inc., B-407917.2 et al (July 10, 2013).

Note that there is nothing stating that Factor 4: Technical Qualifications and Experience and Factor 7: Past Performance must use the same past projects/contracts.

Question 126 What are the key personnel positions for this project?

USDA Response: Other than recommendations that may be in the PWS, the USDA will not weigh in as to what is a key personnel position for this requirement. Contractor employee positions are up to the Offeror to determine

Question 127 The RFP states for both the “Technical Proposal and Past Performance” and “Price Proposal” volumes the offerer must provide their “Offer Signed and dated by the by the owner or authorized representative, with acknowledgement of all amendments.” (pg 48 & 49 of RFP). Does this mean that two different offer letters must be signed and dated for each volume? Also, all there any guidelines for what must be included in these offer letters?

USDA Response: Since we are not utilizing a SF1449 or SF33, as per FAR instructions, please just include a statement that you acknowledge the solicitation and amendment documents one through (xxx whatever number we end with). Please make sure you have read all the Amendments.

Question 128 The RFP states “the offeror may include client or third-party documentation as part of their Proposal demonstrating how well they performed on relevant projects” such as “awards, customer letters of commendation, or customer performance evaluations” (pg https://www.gao.gov/products/B-407917.2,B-407917.3,B-407917.4,B-407917.5,B-407917.6,B-407917.7 https://www.gao.gov/products/B-407917.2,B-407917.3,B-407917.4,B-407917.5,B-407917.6,B-407917.7

51). However, it also states that “The offeror must submit this information for past performance evaluation or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance” (pg 51). Please confirm whether submitting “awards, customer letters of commendation, or customer performance evaluations” is required as part of the past performance submittal.

USDA Response: The above referenced RFP verbiage is changed to

“NOTE: The offeror may include client or third-party documentation as part of their Proposal demonstrating how well they performed on relevant projects, such as awards, customer letters of commendation, or customer performance evaluations.

NOTE: The Offeror must submit past performance information or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance.”

Question 129 Is the “Client Past Performance Questionnaire” required to be completed by the clients for all past performance provided in the proposal?

USDA Response: No, it is understandable that your Company’s Past Performance references may not want to complete the Client Past Performance Questionnaire; however, your Company will be viewed more favorably than a Company that cannot obtain Client Past Performance Questionnaires.

Question 130 Is there a template for the “signed procurement integrity agreement”? (p 51) USDA Response: This requirement has been removed from the PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION instructions.

Question 131 The RFP states “a complete Proposal submittal shall consist of at least 3 electronic files in total: (1) One MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing a Proposal Response per each section of the response as detailed below,” and (2) “One completed MS Excel pricing spread sheet file, with One or two MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing pricing narrative and Deliverables-Schedule Pricing” (pg 47). To confirm, the “3 electronic files” should consist of: (1) A PDF version of the “Technical Proposal & Past Performance” and “Price Proposal” (2) an Excel version of the “Price Proposal.” What is the 3rd file?

USDA Response:

A complete Proposal submittal shall consist of at least 3 electronic files in total.

• One MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing a Proposal Response for TECHNICAL PROPOSAL and PAST PERFOMANCE – Section One as detailed below.

• One completed MS Excel pricing spread sheet file, − with One or two MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing pricing narrative and Deliverables-Schedule Pricing for PRICE PROPOSAL – Section Two, as detailed below. (Therefore, at least two files for Section Two.)

Question 132 Should the “Technical Proposal & Past Performance” and “Price Proposal” be submitted as two separate volumes?

Question 133 Response to question 50 of amendment 8: Can an 8(a) firm, without JV, provides its most relevant performances similar in size, scope and complexity performed between 2004 - 2016? Would the government consider them recent on just and fair basis?

USDA Response: The standard is that recent is considered 3 to 5 yrs in the contracting arena.

This solicitation is going with 5 yrs as recent. However, if you do not have any past performance or experience within the last 5 years, please provide what your company does possess. The submitted information will still be evaluated, it just will not be viewed as favorable as 5yr information.

Question 134 Response to question 58 of amendment 9: While preparing pricing, can an offeror assume that the provided number of team members in PWS are (1) FTE working 40/week and not seasonal and (2) 100% dedicated to the FA and not splitting their time to serve to other FAs?

Question 135 Response to question 56 of amendment 8: Also can we submit the Dun and Bradstreet past performance report as one of the past performance that we obtained to get GSA schedule which is older than 5 years?

USDA Response:

The standard is that recent is considered 3 to 5 yrs in the contracting arena. This solicitation is going with 5 yrs as recent. However, if you do not have any past performance or experience within the last 5 years, please provide what your company does possess. The submitted information will still be evaluated, it just will not be viewed as favorable as 5yr information.