B26_SQA__Attachment_3_-_Q_A_Spreadsheet_Amendment_002_0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DENALI COMMISSION: STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORT
- Solicitation number
- 140D0426R0022
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document (Amendment 002) addressing clarifications to RFP 140D0426R0022 for the Denali Commission Strategic Planning Report, issued by the Department of the Interior's Interior Business Center. The Q&A spreadsheet resolves 19 key areas of contractor inquiry regarding solicitation requirements, contract structure, and pricing methodology.
The solicitation is a small business set-aside under NAICS 541690 (Other Scientific and Technical Consulting) with a $19 million size standard. The contract is Firm-Fixed-Price with separate Time and Material travel reimbursement CLINs, with proposals due February 17, 2026, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time via email to bridgette_ornelas@ibc.doi.gov. Clarifications confirm that the proposal shall remain valid for 90 days, all certifications and representations must be submitted with Volume II (Price/Administrative) and will not count against the 20-page Volume I technical limit, and both volumes must be submitted together in a single email. The government will evaluate price for fairness, reasonableness, and compliance rather than scoring or ranking it. For travel CLINs (30, 130, 230), offerors should propose estimated costs based on up to two site visits each to Alaska and Washington, D.C., with trips generally not exceeding four days; the government will assess reasonableness and establish a Not-To-Exceed amount post-award. Core CLINs (10, 110, 210) should be priced as annual costs billed in equal monthly installments. The Performance Work Statement requires data-driven assessments of partnerships with Alaska's indigenous communities and international counterparts in Canada, Greenland, and Russia to support capability development evaluation options.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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
Q&A
| Combined Synopsis / Solicitation: 140D0426R0022 |
| DENALI COMMISSION: STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORT |
| # | Document Type | |||
| (General, RFP, PWS, Pricing Template, etc.) | Section (Where the information is found) | Clause/Paragraph Title | Contractor's Question / Comment / Recommendation | Government's Response |
Amendment #002 02/03/2026 1 RFP 4.3 FAR PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (RFP Pg. 42) 52.219-1(b) FAR 52.219-1(b) states that this is a small business set-aside under NAICS 541512 and that the size standard is $34.0M. However, in Block 10 of the SF1449, RFP Section 1.3, and RFP Section 4.1 the RFP states this is a small business set-aside under 541690 with a size standard of $19M.
1. Can the Government confirm if this is a small business set-aside under NAICS 541512 ($34M) or 541690 ($19M)?
2. Can the Government revise FAR 52.219-1(b) in the RFP to clarify which NAICS applies to this procurement? 1. This Small Business set-aside applies to NAICS code 541690 – ‘Other Scientific and Technical Consulting,’ which has a small business size standard of $19 million.
2. Section 4.1 (FAR 52.219-1(b)) has been updated accordingly.
2 RFP Sections 1, 2 and 4 1.6 Anticipated Award Type
2.1 Contract Line Items Numbers
4.3 FAR Provisionals Incorporated by Reference The following sections of the RFP contain conflicting information on the contract type:
- Section 1.6 states this is a "Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) type contract. The Government anticipates travel, which will be reimbursed at actual cost."
- FAR 52.216-1 states that is a Firm-Fixed-Price contract.
- Section 2.1 indicates that CLINs 00030, 00130, and 00230 are Time and Material CLINs.
| Can the Government clarify the contract type anticipated? | The contract is Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) with separate travel CLINs reimbursed under T&M terms; this does not change the overall FFP classification because FAR does not prohibit mixed CLIN types and the T&M portion is less than 50% of the total value. | |||
| 3 | RFP | SF1449 & SF30 | SF1449 Block 8 | |
| Amend. 0001 SF30 Block 11 | There is conflicting information regarding the proposal due date: |
- SF1449 Block 8 - Due date is 02/06/2026 1400 ES
- Amendment 0001 SF30 Block 11 - Due Date Is Not Extended
- RFP Section 1.5 - Proposals due no later than 2:00 PM current Eastern Time, February 17, 2026,
| Can the Government clarify if the proposal is due at 2pm Eastern on 2/6/2026 or 2/17/2026? If 2/17 is the correct due date, can the Government issue an amendment to clarify this on the SF30? | The RFP due date was first updated to February 17, 2026, during Amendment 1 on 01/27/2026 and has been verified again with Amendment 2. | |||
| 4 | RFP | SF1449 & SF30 | SF1449 Block 8 | |
| Amend. 0001 SF30 Block 11 | Can the Government extend the due date to Feb. 27th to provide offerors ample time to prepare a competative proposal? |
| The answers to these questions will impact offerors proposals. Accordingly, an extension would provide enough time for the Government to answer questions and offeors to revise thier proposals in response to the answers to these questions. | The RFP deadline will remain February 17, 2026. | |||||
| 5 | RFP | Section 2 | 2.3 | Can the Government confirm that Period of Performance would start upon Contract Award? | Yes, the Period of Performance will begin upon contract award. | |
| 6 | RFP | 1.1 |
3.6.1 FAR 52.252-2
3.6.2 FAR 52.212-5(c)(1) RFP Section 1.1 states the Government is using FAR Part 13 for this solicitation. The following clauses and provisions are included in this solicitation; however, per FAR 13.006 that following clauses and provisions should not be applicable to solicitations following FAR Part 13:
- 52.203-5, Covenant Against Contingent Fees. -- RFP pg. 15
- 52.203-6, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government. -- RFP pg. 16
- 52.203-7, Anti-Kickback Procedures - RFP pg. 15
- 52.222-4, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards-Overtime Compensation. - RFP pg. 20
| If the Government is issuing this solicitation under FAR Part 13, should the clauses and provisions above be removed from this solicitation? | The solicitation will remain as issued: clauses 52.203-5, 52.203-6, 52.203-7, and 52.222-4 are included and will not be removed. The RFP expressly states the acquisition is conducted under FAR Parts 12, 13, and 19.5 and incorporates 52.212-5 and the listed FAR clauses in Sections 3.6 and 4.3, which authorize inclusion of clauses needed to implement statutes or executive directives. | |||||
| 7 | RFP | Section 4 | 4.1 Format for Proposals & Volume II - Proposal Validity | RFP Section 4.1 states the cover page must cite the proposal is valid for 120-days, while the instructions for Volume II Price states the proposal should be valid for 90-days. Can the Government clarify if the proposal needs to be valid for 90-days or 120-days? | The proposal shall remain valid for a period of 90 days, and Section 4.1 has been revised accordingly. | |
| 8 | RFP | Section 4 | 4.3 FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference | The solicitation contains several provisions that require offerors to check a box and submit their certification or representation ("certs & reps") with their proposal. However, it is unclear which Volume (i.e., Volume 1 or Volume 2) these certs & reps should be included. |
- Can the Government clarify which Volume these certs & reps should be included?
- Further, if these certs & reps are to be included in Volume 1, can the Government confirm this does not count against the Volume 1 20-page limit? 1. The Government requires all required certifications and representations (the “certs & reps”) to be submitted with the Volume II – Price/Administrative submission (or as a separate administrative attachment). These certs & reps will not count against the Volume I technical 20‑page limit.
2. The RFP has been updated accordingly on pages 32 and 51.
9 RFP Section 4 4.2 Volume II Price The RFP states "The Price Volume shall be submitted separately from Volume I – Technical Proposals."
| Can the Government clarify this requirement? Does this mean Volume I and Volume II simply need to be separate electronic files or does this mean offerors need to submit Volume I and Volume II via separate emails? | Both volumes must be submitted together in a single email. | |||
| 10 | RFP | Sections 1 & 4 | Section 1.5 Proposal Due Date | |
| Section 4.2 Submissions | Neither Section 1.5 or 4.2 state how proposals should be submitted to the Government. Should proposals be submitted electronically via email to Bridgette Ornelas at bridgette_ornelas@ibc.doi.gov? |
| Are there any additional instructions that offerors should be aware of (e.g., specific subject line, file size limits, etc.)? | The RFP has been updated on page 2 to specify that proposals should be emailed to bridgette_ornelas@ibc.doi.gov, including the solicitation number in the subject line and any applicable size limitations. | ||||
| 11 | RFP | Section 5 | 5.4 Volume II: Price Proposal | Section 5.4 states "Price will not be scored or rated but will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and compliance with all submission requirements." |
However, in Section 4.2 the RFP states the Government will calculate a "total evaluated price." Additionally, Section 5.2 states that "Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, even if not the lowest price, when technical advantages justify the additional cost."
| Can the Government clarify how will Total Evaluated Price be calculated (i.e., scored)? Will offeror prices be compared to each other (i.e., rated)? | The reference to ‘Total Evaluated Price’ in Section 4.2 pertains to the inclusion of the FAR 52.217-8 clause. For additional details, please refer to Section 4.3.2, AQD Provisions Incorporated in Full Text. Section 5.2 remains unchanged; best value will be determined based on the criteria outlined in Section 5.4. | ||||
| 12 | RFP | Section 5 | 5.4 Volume II: Price Proposal | Section 5.4 states "Price will not be scored or rated but will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and compliance with all submission requirements." |
However, in Section 5.2 states this is a Best Value procurement and Technical is more important than price. This implies that price will be scored and rated.
- How will offeror prices be scored and evaluated?
- Can the Government issue an amendment to the RFP to describe how price will be scored and rated? Price will not be scored or rated. Instead, as required by FAR 13, it will be reviewed for fairness, reasonableness, and compliance with submission requirements.
Prices may be compared for reasonableness, but they will not be ranked or given a numerical score.
Award will be based on best value, as explained in Section 5.2. Technical factors are more important than price.
The best value decision will follow the criteria in Section 5.4, with technical factors carrying greater weight than price.
| 13 | RFP | Section 6 | RFP Attachment 4 - Non-Disclosure Agreement | Can the Government confirm that RFP Attachment 4 does not need to completed or submitted with the proposal? | This requirement does not need to be completed until after award. |
| 14 | Pricing Template | Pricing Template | CLIN 30, 130, 230 | Can the Government clarify how offerors are to propose a price for CLINs 30, 130 and 230? More specifically, what assumptions should an offeror use in terms of travel? Is this 4 trips to DC plus 4 trips to AK? If it is 4 trips total, what is the assumed split between DC and AK (e.g., 2 trips each)? How many days long are these trips? What time of year would these trips occur (e.g., seasonality impacts lodging per diems)? | In accordance with the PWS, travel includes up to two (2) site visits to Alaska (AK) and up to two (2) site visits to Washington, D.C. The RFP and pricing template have been updated to reflect this requirement. The anticipated travel months are listed in Section 6.0 of the PWS. |
Typically, the Government provides a Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amount for travel; however, given the unique travel requirements for Alaska, the Government is requesting that the vendor provide an estimated travel cost based on their location. This estimate will be considered when establishing the NTE for the travel CLINs.
As stated in the RFQ, travel shall be reimbursed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 and the instructions at Local Clause: Contractor Travel (Apr 2017) at Section 3.7.2.6, which include submission of a travel voucher, receipts, and a fraudulent claims statement.
For travel-related assumptions, offerors should refer to the applicable FAR provisions mentioned above.
Trip duration: While final confirmation is pending, offerors may assume that trips will generally not exceed four (4) days. This assumption is subject to verification and may be adjusted based on further guidance.
| 15 | Pricing Template | Pricing Template | CLIN 30, 130, 230 | How will the Government equitably evaluate and/or compare the proposed prices for travel from different offerors if offerors are using different assumptions (e.g., # days, time of year, destination, etc.)? Since this is a NTE travel reimbursement CLIN, can the Government provide an amount that all offerors must use for this CLIN in their price proposal? | The pricing sheet and RFP have been updated to specify the number of days, time of year, and destination for travel; the Government will assess proposed travel estimates for reasonableness and compliance rather than scoring or ranking them, and because this is an NTE reimbursement CLIN, a standard amount will not be provided - each offeror’s estimate will be considered equitably when establishing the final NTE after award. |
| 16 | Pricing Template | Pricing Template | CLIN 30, 130, 230 | Can the Government confirm the quantity for this CLIN is the number of trips and offerors should propose a price per trip? | Quantity has been removed to allow flexibility due to multiple variables; however, the total amount should reflect a realistic cost of travel from the vendor’s location to the destinations specified in the PWS. Vendors may update the pricing sheet as deemed necessary to accurately reflect these travel costs |
| 17 | Pricing Template | Pricing Template | CLIN 30, 130, 230 | This CLIN is labeled as Time & Material. Accordingly, are offers permitted to include their travel time (labor hours) in this proposed price or is this CLIN strictly for the reimbursement of travel costs? | All travel must adhere to 3.5 Contractor Travel (APR 2017) in the RFQ, FAR 31.205-46 , and the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). |
| 18 | Pricing Template | Pricing Template | CLIN 10, 110, 210 | The quantity column is blank for CLINs 10, 110, and 210. Should offerors propose a weekly price or an annual price for this CLIN? | Prices should be proposed as annual costs, with the understanding that the total will be billed in equal monthly installments. |
| 19 | PWS | Section 2.0 | OBJECTIVE | PWS Section 2.0 states that critical topics include “Provide data-driven assessments of partnerships with Alaska’s indigenous communities and international counterparts in Canada, Greenland, and Russia to assist the customer in evaluating options for capability development.” Is the collaboration with Russia a requirement (given the current political and security dynamics)? OR Is Russia just an example and it is acceptable to provide assessments of potential partnerships with counterparts in other Arctic nations? | The PWS requires data-driven assessments of the international counterparts identified in the document, with the understanding that these counterparts may be subject to change. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .