Questions and Answers - Amendment 002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ECA EX/IT Information Technology Transformation and Operations Support Services (8a set-aside)
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM21R0302
About this file
This document summarizes a solicitation for information technology transformation and operations support services. The U.S. Department of State's Office of Acquisition Management is seeking these services through an 8(a) small business set-aside. Offerors must submit proposals by September 10, 2021 for an anticipated single award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Eligible 8(a) small businesses must meet requirements for facility security clearance, certifications in CMMI for development and services, cloud computing partner status, and past performance. The solicitation seeks modernization and support of applications, platforms, and infrastructure across six functional areas. Pricing will be submitted for firm fixed-price, time and materials, and labor hour task orders to provide these services. This requirement consolidates efforts previously managed separately by three incumbent contractors.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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 - 19AQMM21R0302
| 19AQMM21R0302 - ECA EX/IT Information Technology Transformation and Operations Support Services - Questions & Responses | |||
| Reference: | Question: | Government Response: | |
| None | Q: "Will the government recognize and consider the formation of a contractor team arrangement as outlined under the Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.601 – Contractor Team Arrangements, specifically paragraph (1) “two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor;” for this opportunity?" | Yes. The Government will recognize Joint Ventures as outlined in FAR 9.601(1). Attachment 8 has been updated to require Joint Venture agreements be included in a JV's Stage 1 submissions, under the Business Volume. | |
| None | Q: "What time are Stage I proposals due on September 10, 2021?" | See RFP amendment 2 for updated due date and time | |
| RFP - Section L.3 | Q: "The return date on the Past Performance Questionnaire attachment states September 7 which conflicts with Stage I due date of September 10, 2021 stated in Section L.3 Timeline in the Instructions. Please clarify." | The due date for the questionnaires is the same as the Stage 1 proposal due date/time, as reflected in amendment 1. An updated Attachment 5 has been posted to reflect this. | |
| None | Q: "Would the Government consider a small font size requirement than Times New Roman 11 point for graphics and tables?" | Graphics and tables do not have to meet the Times New Roman 11 point font size requirement, but should be no smaller than 8 pt font for the sake of legibility. All other font within the response sections (excluding content not restricted by page limits) should meet the Times New Roman 11 point font size requirement. | |
| RFP - Section L.3 - PG 2 of 13 | Q: "The RFQ states that the Past Performance Questionnaire is due by 9/10 however, the questionnaire itself has a submission due date of 9/7. Please confirm the correct due date." | See Response to Row 5 Question. | |
| RFP - Section L.4 - PG 2 of 13 | Q: "The requirements specify a font size of Times New Roman 11-pt font or larger. Would 10pt TNR be acceptable for tables and graphics?" | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| RFP - C-003, 1.2 - PG 12 of 81 | Q: "Please confirm that Customer Engagement includes the Staffing of a Help Desk." | Confirmed. | |
| None | Q: "If there is a Help Desk requirement, please confirm that the Customer Support Technicians (Junior, Mid-Level, and Senior) would be the labor categories used to staff the Help Desk." | Confirmed. | |
| None | Q: "If there is a Help Desk, please provide the hours during the day (for example, 6a – 6pm) and the days of the week (for example, M – F) that it has to be staffed. Also indicate whether or not it has to be staffed during government holidays." | Reference F-004: "normal hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 0600 to 1800, with core support hours of 0800 to 1700, except federal holidays" This applies to Service Desk as well. | |
| RFP - B-004, Travel - PG 5 thru 7 of 81 | Q: "Please confirm that in accordance with FAR 52.232-7, travel costs incurred may be burdened with the contractor’s indirect/material handling rate in accordance with the contractor’s disclosed practices." | Reference B-003 and B-004. | |
| Attachment 3 - Labor Categories / Position Descriptions | Q: "Is there a minimum level of education required for these Labor Categories?” | No. | |
| Attachment 3 - Labor Categories / Position Descriptions | Q: "Can education be used to substitute for the years of experience requirements, ie: a Bachelor's Degree is equivalent to 2 years of experience, a Master's equivalent to 4 years of experience, etc.” | No. | |
| None | Q: "How many IDIQs will be awarded?” | The government anticipates awarding a single IDIQ resulting from this solicitation. | |
| None | Q: "Is this a new or existing requirement? Are there any incumbent contractor(s)?” | This is a consolidated effort stemming from three separate requirements managed by the following vendors: Customer Value Partners, Indrasoft, and ManTech. | |
| RFQ, H-016, KEY PERSONNEL, PG 43 | Q: "This section identifies 8 key personnel at the IDIQ-level. Are these full-time funded positions?” | Yes. It is anticipated that these will be full-time on the first task order issued. | |
| RFQ, A. Section 508 Accessibility Standards Notice (September 2009), PG 36 | Q: "Please confirm a VPAT can be submitted as part of the Business Volume.” | Refer to F-006 (A) of the RFP for general 508 requirements. VPATs are not required for proposal submissoin. VPATs if and when required will be developed at the Task Order level. | |
| RFQ, Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents, PG 62 | Q: "For provision 52.225-25 referenced in the table, there are no fill-ins for representations or certifications. Are offerors to include a copy of the full-text clause in their proposal?” | This is a clause, not a provision. Therefore, no action is required on the part of Offerors. Even so, the clause has been moved to Section I to avoid further confusion. | |
| Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire, PG 1: | Q: "Please confirm "1.13 Cost" is requesting the contract value.” | Confirmed. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions to Offerors_Advisory Down-Select Process, L.4 Proposal Content Requirements, PG 2: | Q: "Will the government please consider allowing Times New Roman 10 point font for graphics, tables, headers/footers?” | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions to Offerors_Advisory Down-Select Process, L.5 Go/No-Go Initial Screening: Required Qualifications Instructions, PG 4; L.6 Stage I Instructions, Factor 3: Past Performance, PG 7 | Q: "Please confirm per 13 C.F.R. § 125.8 that the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of joint venture partners will be considered and evaluated as the offeror's capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications.” | See Response to Row 3 Question. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions to Offerors_Advisory Down-Select Process, L.6 Stage I Instructions, Factor 3: Past Performance, PG 7: | RFP: "Please provide the following information for each past performance cited, totaling not more than 3 pages in length (for all past performance citations combined, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaires)." Q: "Will the government please consider extending the page length to 3 pages per past performance cited? Just the list of 12 items that the government is requesting already takes up half a page without any information provided. Plus, there are 6 main SOW tasks with multiple subtasks underneath for which to describe relevance to” | The RFP has been amended to allow for 2 pages per past performance citation. | |
| None | Q: "If the contract type for the task orders are Firm Fixed Price, Time and Materials, and/or Labor Hours, what is the intent of offerors providing Overhead, G&A, Fringe, and Profit rates in the Pricing Template?” | Attachment 7 has been amended. | |
| RFQ, Instruction to Offerors, PG 6 of Instruction to Offerors | RFP: "Technical Work Product: "Please provide a POC who can grant access. Once the Offeror has passed the GO/NO-GO criteria, the Contracting Officer will provide the stated POC with the email addresses of the individuals that should be granted access, if the URL will not be visible to the public." Q: "The technical work product requires the development of the necessary dashboards. Can you clarify what the government would like to see in this access, given the dashboard(s) will not be completed until post-award?” | The dashboard is part of the evaluation criteria and needs to be completed for review during Stage 1, not post-award. Access required is for the panel members that will be assessing the dashboard during evaluation. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions; L.4 Proposal Content Requirements | Q: "May a font other than Times New Roman be used for graphics and tables?" | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions; L.4 Proposal Content Requirements | Q: "May a font size smaller than 11pt be used for graphics and tables?" | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions; L.5 Go/No-Go Initial Screening: Required Qualifications Instructions | Q: "In accordance with 13 CFR 125.8(e) and 13 CFR 121.103(h)(4), please confirm that Joint Venture prime offerors, established pursuant to an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement, are able to leverage the Facility Clearance, CMMI, ISO, and cloud certifications held individually by a JV member entity for the purpose of satisfying the Prime's Go/No-Go initial screening." | For the non-FCL go/no-go requirements, this is acceptable. For the FCL requirement, the requirement for a SECRET FCL at time of proposal has been changed, though there is a requirement for a SECRET FCL for contract performance. This applies to all prime entities, to include JVs. | |
| Standard Form 1449 | Q: "Per the SF 1449, offerors are supposed to complete block 24. May offerors satisfy the Block 24 requirement by submitting the completed Attachment_7_EX-IT_Pricing_Template?" | Offerors must still complete Block 24. | |
| Attachment_7_EX-IT_Pricing_Template | Q: "Will the Government update the pricing requirements to only require fully burdened rates?" | See Response to Row 24 Question. | |
| Attachment 8 - Instructions; L.4 Proposal Content Requirements | Q: "We respectfully request removing all key personnel except for the Program Manager as a requirement. It is onerous for an 8(a) contractor to staff 8 key personnel at the IDIQ level when they are not contractually billing hours, as well as administratively burdensome for the government to administer the contractual requirements necessary for staffing eight key personnel. Maintaining 8 Key personnel at the IDIQ level adds little value since the technical personnel will only be performing work at the task order level." | The intent is not to staff these positions at the IDIQ level. The key personnel identified in the RFP are anticipated to be needed for the first task order issued under the resulting IDIQ. | |
| Attachment 5 & Attachment 8 | Q: "Attachment 8, page 2 (L.3), shows a target date for receipt of Past Performance Questionnaires as 09/10/2021 and L.6 #12 (page 8) requires PPQs to be returned by the deadline in L.3. However, the deadline in Attachment 5 is September 7, 2021. Will the government please revise Attachment 5 to show a due date of 09/10/21?" | See Response to Row 5 Question. | |
| RFP, PG 9 | Q: "The link is not working: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FY-2019-2022-EX/ITP_FINAL-508._with-Signature.pdf" | The correct link is https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FY-2019-2022-ITSP_FINAL-508._with-Signature.pdf and has been updated under C-001 of the amended RFP. | |
| RFP, Section C | Q: "C-004 is Deliverables. RFP page 10 refers to C-005 (Deliverables). C-005 does not exist. Please correct the reference on RFP page 10 to be C-004 (Deliverables). Please clarify if C-005 is "reserved" or if C sections are to be renumbered." | This was an oversight. C-002 has been revised to reflect the correct reference (C-004, Deliverables) in the amended RFP. | |
| Attachment 8, Factor 3, PG. 7; Attachment 9, Factor 3, PG. 4; | Q: "Attachment 8 instructions require “examples of projects performed within the past two years of comparable size and/or scope”. Attachment 9 states that past performance will be evaluated on “project(s) submitted is/are similar in size, scope, complexity, and technical difficulty to EX/IT”. Will the government please revise Attachment 9 to read, "examples of projects performed within the past two years of comparable size and/or scope”?" | Atachment 8 has been updated to align with language already included in Attachment 9. | |
| Attachment 8 | Q: "Attachment 8, page 7, first bullet, Application Development - Does ECA following any specific Application Standards we should be aware?" | ECA/EX/IT follows CMMI overall and Agile/Scrum when applicable. | |
| Attachment 8 | Q: "Attachment 8, page 5, Factor 1: No.2 Base Data: are these "Indicators" the only ones to use in the Technical work product: Data analytics & Visulization?" | Please also reference page 6 #3 (supplementary data). | |
| Attachment 8 | Q: "Attachment 8, page 6, Factor 1: No.4 a) How many individuals may potentially access the demo dashboard simultaneously?" | No more than 3. | |
| Attachment 1 | Q: "Attachment 8, page 6, Factor 2: No.1 Would ECA consider a switch to Java/Python from the .Net applications?" | No; this is the existing EX/IT environment. Redevelopment of existing applications into a new language are not within scope of this contract | |
| Attachment 8 | Q: "Attachment 8, page 7, second bullet, Platform and Infrustructure: Does ECA have any data/application that must be run on-Prem inside the DMZ?" | Yes. | |
| Attachment 8 | Q: "With respect to IT Modernization (Factor 2), would ECA EX/IT please provide an estimate of the total raw data size in gigabytes current have, and the rough year over year growth rate?" | Total of approximately 3,000 GB with an 15% annual increment. | |
| Attachment 8, Factor 3, PG. 7; Attachment 9, Factor 3, PG. 4 | Q: "Would the government more closely align the past performance evaluation factor (Attachment 9, Factor 3) with the past performance instructions in Attachment 8 by modifying Attachment 9, Factor 3 to include evaluation of the references in terms of the offer’s role on the referenced contracts (prime or subcontractor) and to evaluate the “portion(s) of the project work performed directly by the Offeror or other proposed Teaming Partners/subcontractors, versus what aspects of the work were completed by other contractors not part of the Offeror’s proposed team for this solicitation” (from the instructions)?" | Attachment 9 has been updated to address this question. | |
| Attachment 9, Factor 3, PG. 4 | Q: "Will the government evaluate more favorably past performance references where the offeror is prime?" | Depending on the significance of the work performed by the prime, such past performance may increase overall confidence for Factor 3. | |
| RFP, C-001 –Background, PG 9 | RFP: "https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FY-2019-2022-EX/ITP_FINAL-508._with-Signature.pdf" Q: "The link provided generates an “Error” message. Please provide a functional link.” | See Response to Row 33 Question. | |
| Attach. 8, L.4 Proposal Content Requirements, PG 2 | RFP: "Times New Roman 11-pt font or larger" Q: "Please confirm that offerors may use a smaller font size and/or different style for diagrams and tables (ex.: Arial Narrow in 9 point)?” | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| Attach. 8, L.4, table on PG 4 | |||
| Attach. 8, L.6, Factor 2, PG 7 | RFP: "Factor 2: 2 pages (excluding diagrams) |
vs.
| 1. A diagram documenting your approach." Q: "The first reference mentions “diagrams” (plural), while the second reference mentions “diagram” (singular). How many diagrams are allowed?” | As many diagrams as are needed to modernize the provided sample. The 2 page limit references the associated write-up that includes key written takeaways summarizing the proposed approach. | |
| Attach. 8, L.5, Go/No-go requirement #1 | RFP: "Offerors shall possess, and provide proof of, a valid SECRET Facility Clearance or higher at the time of proposal submission" Q: "According to the NISPOM (National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual) and Department of State guidance: |
https://www.state.gov/facility-security-clearances-faq/#Subcontracts
| A joint venture (JV), itself, must be processed for an FCL, even if all JV partners are cleared. Please confirm that if the prime entity is a JV, regardless if it is populated, then the JV must possess at minimum a SECRET Facility Clearance prior to the Stage 1 submission.” | The requirement for a SECRET facility security clearance (FCL) at time of proposal has been changed, though there is a requirement for a SECRET FCL for contract performance. If the prime entity is a JV, the JV itself must possess a SECRET FCL for contract performance. See updated Attachment 9, Section M.8. | ||
| Attach. 8, L.6, 2.b | RFP: "Download the following economic indicators (publicly available data) from the World Bank website" Q: "We cannot access the All countries’ Consumer Price Index. When we go to the website from the Instructions, the page displays error: “No data is available at the World Level” | The page: All countries Consumer Price Index contains a dashboard and the dashboard shows the message: No data is available at the World Level; however, on that page, there are buttons to download data files in three formats. Offerors shall utilize those download buttons. | |
| Attach. 8, L.4, PG 4 | RFP: "#25 pages total for Stage II response" Q: "The government has given only 25 pages for 8 sections including a technical approach with multiple answers to questions and examples along with 5 different plans. Will the government please increase the overall page count to 40 pages?” | No. Offerors are to be clear and concise in their proposal response. | |
| Attachment 8, Section L.8, Factor 6, PG 11 | Q: "The instructions in this section “Submit a proposed draft Quality Plan / QASP to ensure the requirements are provided as specified in the SOW. Please confirm that the reference is to a contractor Quality Control Plan or a QASP.” | This refers to a contractor Quality Control Plan. QASPs, if required, will be developed at the Task Order Level. Attachment 8 has been amended to remove the term QASP from Factor 6. | |
| RFP, Section C-002, PG 10 | Q: "The RFP states “Provide a Program Manager to oversee Contractor support services in the six EX/IT functional areas. The Program manager is accountable for ensuring that efficient and effective all stages of Project Management; Project Initiation and Transition, Project Planning and Coordination, Project Control, and Project Reporting and Communication.” Will the government confirm that this will be a billable position included in the first formal Task Order RFP?” | Confirmed. | |
| RFP, Section C-004, PG 21 | RFP: "On-time quality delivery of all deliverables is a core requirement of all Task Orders and is incentivized." Q: "Will the government please confirm the intended structure for Incentives as the Offeror is to provide Fixed Labor Rates for LH/T&M/FFP TOs and not Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee, etc.?” | The referenced language has been removed from C-004. Incentives, if applicable, will be identified at the task order level. | |
| Attachment 8, Section L.5, PG 4 | RFP: "Please submit a response confirming that the PRIME offeror meets each individual required qualification below." Q: "Please indicate where this GO/NO GO response should be located, in one of the Stage I submitted volumes (ex. Business Volume) or in a separate PDF document submitted as part of the Stage I response.” | As noted in the table in Attachment 8 page 3, please submit the go/no-go criteria as a separate PDF document. There is no page limit for this information. | |
| Attachment 8, Stage I, PG 4 | Background: "The procurement rules and GAO decisions have made clear that agencies my 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). |
Crediting 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." Q: "Will the government please clarify that the Offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and experience of an affiliate company so long as the Offeror demonstrates how the resources of the affiliate will meaningfully contribute to the performance of the ECA EX/IT Contract?” Confirmed. However, failure to clearly demonstrate how the resources of the affiliate will meaningfully and DIRECTLY contribute to the performance of the ECA EX/IT contract may result in a lower confidence rating for the past performance.
| Attachment 3 - Labor Categories / Position Descriptions, Stage II Factors – Factor 5, Sub-Factor B | Q: "Will the government consider additional years of relevant experience in lieu of “required” or “preferred” certification/s.” | No. | |
| Attachment 9 – Evaluation Procedures Evaluation Factors for Award - Factor 3: Past Performance | Q: "If only one Federal Customer responds rather than two or three how will the ratings be impacted.” | Only one response from a Federal customer is required (see Section 8, page 8 and Section 9 page 4). | |
| Attachment 5 – Past Performance Questionairre, Factor 3: Past Performance | Q: "The September 7th due date for the return of completed PPQ’s is very aggressive given the granularity of information required. The breadth and depth of the response will likely require collaboration among program and contracts personnel and there is a holiday on September 6th which may interfere in getting responses completed. In order to get meaningful responses to the PPQs, we request that the date for the return of PPQ’s be delayed until September 20th to ensure that there is sufficient time for responses.” | See response to Row 5 Question. | |
| Statement of Work (SOW) - PG 21 | SOW: "On-time quality delivery of all deliverables is a core requirement of all Task Orders and is incentivized. Quality is defined as identified final submissions (drafts are not included) that do not require revisions or rework on first pass. The minimal acceptable performance level is that 90% of all deliverables must pass acceptance by EX/IT | ||
| upon first submission without revision or rework unless otherwise stated at the task order level." Q: "Please clarify or provide the matrix by with the contractor will be incentivized? Is this a monetary incentive or just an impact to CPARS?” | See Response to Row 52 Question. | ||
| RFP, Section F - PG 33 | RFP: "Monthly reports must be able to support Earned Value Management (EVM) for measuring project performance and progress and OMB reporting requirements." Q: "What EVM metric standards are applicable to this contract or is it the government’s intention to implement Agile and DevSecOps metrics in lieu of EVM?” | Industry suggests that EVM reporting in an Agile Development environment is viable and complementary. OMB reporting requirements must always be considered in government projects. Specifics will be discuss and agreed upon (government and contractor) for each task order accounting for the apropriate mix of reporting requirements, as appropriate to task and size. | |
| RFP, Section F - PG 33 | RFP: "POINTS OF CONTACT: |
Contractors shall provide a name and phone number for a Point of Contact (POC), along with any subcontractors’ POC. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will be responsible for providing Task
| Order monitoring, technical oversight and direction, Task Order administration and payment, coordinating contractual modifications and any required alterations or changes to the basic orders." Q: "Please clarify, since there is no privy [sic] of contract between the subcontractor and the government, why a Subcontractor POC is being requested?” | Subcontractor POCs are not required. F-001 has been updated. | ||
| Attch 8, L.4 Proposal Content Requirements - PG 2 | Q: "The RFP states that text must be “Times New Roman 11-pt font or larger”. Will the Government allow size 9 or 10pt Times New Roman font for tables, callout boxes, and graphics/artwork?” | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| Attch 8, L.4 Proposal Content Requirements - PG 2 | Q: "The RFP states that text must be “Times New Roman 11-pt font or larger”. Will the Government allow size 9 or 10pt Times New Roman font for headers and footers??” | See Response to Row 6 Question. | |
| Attch 8, L.4 Proposal Content Requirements - PG 2 | Q: "The RFP states that text must be “Times New Roman 11-pt font or larger”. Will the government exclude screenshots from this font requirement so they may be submitted in their native screen capture font?” | Reference attachment 8, page 4 "*After noted exclusions: Cover Page, Table of Contents, Images/Diagrams (required to fit on an 8x11 page), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and/or Resumes for Key Personnel". | |
| RFP, Section G-003 - PG 41 | RFP: "G-003 - NON-DISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS |
Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the contractor and its subcontractors shall, except as otherwise herein, in good faith offer those professional service employees employed under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of this contract or the expiration of the
| contract under which the employees were hired, a right of first refusal of employment under this contract in positions for which employees are qualified." Q: "Please clarify this requirement when is it no longer required by FAR” | The language under G-003 only requires a "good faith" effort to maintain continuity of personnel under any resulting IDIQ/task orders. The language remains in the RFP as originally stated. | |
| RFP, Section I - PG 47 | RFP: "Under the Observance of Holidays it states in part “(d) For fixed-price contracts, if services are not required or provided because the building is closed due to inclement weather, unanticipated holidays declared by the President, failure of Congress to appropriate funds, or similar reasons, deductions will be computed as follows: |
(1) The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month contract price divided by 21 days per month.
(2) The deduction rate in dollars per day will be multiplied by the number of days services are not required or provided.
| If services are provided for portions of days, appropriate adjustment will be made by the contracting officer to ensure that the contractor is compensated for services provided.” Q: "Given that there are provisions for telework, can the contractor shift its operations into a telework performance mode, if feasible based on the work being performed, such that this deduction would not ensue?” | Situations arise (pandemic) where certain consessions have to be made for continuity of services purposes. These are taken on a case-by-case and contracts are modified accordingly to accomodate these rarer situations. Otherwise, when telework agreements have been arranged, telework under these situations are also authorized on case by case situations. Therefore the base contract language will remain "as is" and be applied as the default approach unless alternative arrangements are approved and a task order modification is issued to change the default approach in certain specific situations if and when they arise. | ||
| RFP, Section I - PG 60 | RFP: "52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (Jan 2017) (E.O. 13706)." Q: "Please clarify why the following is marked as applicable when there are no other SCA requirements checked and no WD provided?” | This has been removed from the RFP as no positions have been identified as SCA-eligible, considering the type of efforts anticipated under this solicitation. | |
| Attachment 8 - Section L.6: – Factor 3: Past Performance, PG 7 | RFP: "Provide at least one, but not more than three, examples of projects performed within the past two years of comparable size and/or scope to the requirements outlined in the Functional Areas of the SOW" Q: "Allowing for references that have been performed over the past three years will provide the Government with a better view of an offerors capabilities while ensuring that the technologies and processes employed remain relevant to the ECA EX/IT scope. Will the Government allow for references that have been performed within the past 3 years as relevant to this bid?” | Attachment 8 has been ammended to allow for past performance to include projects performed within the last 3 years. | |
| RFP, Section L.5 | Q: "In accordance with 13 CFR 125.2(g), please revise Section L.5 of the solicitation to allow for a PRIME offeror to rely on one or more 1st-tier small business subcontractors to satisfy any or all of the 5 listed requirements.” | If the Offeror is structured as defined in FAR 9.601(2) the requirements in L.5 must be fully satisfied by the Prime Contractor. If the Offeror is structured as defined in FAR 9.601(1), the the requirements in L.5 may be satisfied by a combination of the qualifications of the member companies of the JV, as reflected in the JV's agreement to be submitted in the Business Volume (see Response to Row 1 Question). |
| None | Q: "Will the Government permit our “AWS Consulting Partner Network Select” as valid for the pre-selection criteria?” | Reference attachment 8, page 5 "Offerors shall possess AWS Consulting Partner Network Select (Standard) or higher and provide proof of this with their Phase 1 submission. |
| None | Q: "Will the Government accept “OR” instead of “AND” for the CMMI certifications? If not, will the Government permit proof of these to be at time of award?” | No, both certifications are required and documentation that both certifications are held by the Offeror must be provided at the time of Stage I proposal submission. |
| None | Q: "Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent contractor?” | See Response to Row 16 Question. |
| None | Q: "Is there an estimated date for releasing the solicitation?” | The solicitation was released on 8/20/2021. |
| RFP, Section L.5 | Q: The 8(a) vendor company bidding has a partner with the needed SECRET clearance. Is that acceptable for the purposes of bidding on this RFP? | See Response to Row 68 question. |
| RFP, Section L.5 | Q: The administration, costs and compliance with CMMI appraisal is extreme. Requiring an 8(a) Small Business to have and maintain BOTH CMMI-DEV Level 3 and CMMI-SRV Level 3 severely limits the number of otherwise qualified 8(a) companies that are able compete under such a restrictive requirement. Would the government consider reducing the requirement of the prime offeror for CMMI to EITHER Service or Development? | See Response to Row 70 question. |
| Attachment 8, Section L.5 | Please confirm that the prime contractor (subsidiary) cannot rely on an affiliated holding or parent company to meet the Go/No Go requirements. | See Response to Row 68 question. |
| Attachment 8, Section L.4 | The government asks for and references 3 Volumes for submission. Would the government confirm that it is acceptable to place the Go/No go material in the Business Volume with the Corporate Information and the Reps and Certs? | See Response to Row 53 question. |
| Attachment 8, Section L.4 | Will the government accept the PPQs from Agency POCs as PDFs instead of as Word documents specified in the table - scanned and sent through email? | Yes. |
| Attachment 8, Section L.4 | Will the government accept the PP write-ups from offerors as PDFs? | Yes. |
| Attachment 8, Section L.4 | The government asks for and references 3 Volumes for submission. Would the government confirm that it would like the Factor 1-3 in one volume and as one document (excluding the Dashboard which is at a URL, and the PPQs submitted separately). | Confirmed. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .