Evolve Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 346 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM23R0042
View the file
Other files
Show all 39
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
| ID | Reference | Question | Answer |
| 3 | Registration, Pg #123, Section L.5 - Communications and Questions, Para #3 | It says "Registration is available at the following link:" but this link takes to Zoom meet. Can you please provide link to register for vendor training session? | Registration is not required for the Apex Zoom registration training session. |
| 4 | Section L.5/Page 123 | The link provided does not allow registration. Will the government please provide a registration site for the Apex Logic Inc. training session on December 14th? | Registration is not required for the Apex Zoom registration training session. |
| 5 | Attachment J-30_Evolve Self Scoring Sheet (Revision 1 vs Revision 2) | Can DOS clarify which draft self scoring work sheet attachment (J-30) will more closely reflect the final scoresheet which will be made available in Symphony? There is a slight difference regarding how size of projects will be scored (with one having a max score and the other having an unlimited score) which will significantly impact teaming decisions. |
We request this clarification as soon as possible to support finalization of teaming decisions this week. A draft copy of the sample self-scoring form was inadvertently posted and has been deleted at Amendment 1. The sample self scoring form that reflects the submission format in Symphony is named "J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2." Note: J-30 is not a submission item. Self-scoring is submitted directly into Symphony.
Submission requirements may differ from one functional category to another; this is intentional. Please submit the information requested for the functional category that is being proposed.
| 6 | L.13.1 Phase 1 – Volume 1a: Superior Qualifications (Self-Scoring Sheet) | This section states "The self-scoring spreadsheet is a mechanism the Government intends to use to identify Offerors with superior qualifications which exceed minimum RFP criteria" but the minimum RFP criteria (i.e. points threshold) is not defined in the RFP. Does the government plan to include the minimum RFP criteria in terms of a points threshold for offers that will explicitly define what constitutes superior qualifications for Phase 1? | There is no minimum established threshold. | |
| 7 | RFP, Paragraph L.13.2.e | Past Experience Artifact Requirements | page 136 | Existing Requirement: |
Using the REP Form, the Offeror shall identify up to three recent (within the past three (3) years immediately prior to the date of solicitation) and relevant Government and/or commercial efforts on which it has performed….
Question:
| To fully demonstrate the depth of experience and capabilities of the offeror, would the government consider changing the requirement to include work or projects completed within the last 5 years? | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | ||
| 8 | RFP, Section L13.2 Certifications page 135 and Master_Evolve_RFI_2_QA Section H.8 page 87 | Existing Requirement: |
EVMS – Offeror shall provide proof of their EVMS, along proof of compliance with the 32 guidelines included in the ANSI/EIA-748 standard.
Question:
| Per the government’s responses to Contracting Q&A Questions 95 and 96 to the draft solicitation (Master_Evolve_RFI_2_QA.xlsx ) and the same EVMS language included in the final solicitation, please confirm our understanding that EVMS is only required at the task order level and that EVMS is not a prerequisite to bid at the IDIQ level. | This interpretation is correct; EVMS may be required at the TO level; however, it is not a requirement at the IDIQ level. | ||
| 9 | RFP Paragraph L.13 Phase 1 - Evolve Minimum Standard Criteria page 130 | Existing Requirement: |
Proposals, regardless of functional category type, must include all of the following in order to be further evaluated. Offerors unable to meet all minimum standard criteria will not be read.
Table L5: Evolve Minimum Standard Criteria
Question:
Please confirm our understanding that the offeror’s responses to the Minimum Standard Criteria are to be submitted as a single file and not as separate attachments. Section L.11 States:
"Electronic files shall be logically formatted with file names that are consistent with the structure of the proposal. Individual file sizes shall not exceed 20 MB. NOTE: If the Offeror’s file exceeds the maximum upload size, the Offeror may submit the document in multiple parts, notating the parts in the file name (e.g., Part 1, Part 2, etc.). There is no limit to the number of files that may be uploaded to Symphony"
Submissions may be submitted via multiple files and all files shall be clearly marked to identify each artifact submitted.
10 Attachment j-30 There are two attachments labeled J-30, please confirm the J-30 rev 2 is the proper form to use A draft copy of the sample self-scoring form was inadvertently posted and has been deleted at Amendment 1. The sample self scoring form that reflects the submission format in Symphony is named "J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2." Note: J-30 is not a submission item. Self-scoring is submitted directly into Symphony.
Submission requirements may differ from one functional category to another; this is intentional. Please submit the information requested for the functional category that is being proposed.
11 L.5 Communications and Questions Good Afternoon, Would it be possible to receive an extension on the question due date of December 9, 2022?
The EVOLVE RFP was released late Friday Dec. 3, 2022; therefore, offeror's would have less than 5 business days to review the RFP and Attachments and prepare any questions.
| Thank you for your consideration. | Q&A Will not be extended at this time. | |||
| 12 | RFP # | Please note that RFP # 19AQMM21R1000 does not match 19AQMM23R0042 final RFP. Please advise of the correct RFP # so Lumen can submit questions. Thank you. | Corrected in Symphony on 12/7/22. Correct RFP is 19AQMM23R0042 | |
| 13 | RFP Section: L.5, Communications and Questions, Page 123. Paragraph L.5 - Topic Deadline for Questions | Reference Text: All RFP questions must be submitted within Symphony by December 9, 2022 at 2:00 PM Eastern Time. Any questions submitted after the specified deadline, or through any means other than Symphony, will not be considered by the Government. |
| Evolve RFP Question/Comment: The Evolve draft RFP dated 7/8/22 (L.3.1 Communications and Questions (line 92)) stated “The due date for communications and questions concerning the RFP is no later than 14 calendar days following the release of the solicitation” (lines 97-98). As the final RFP was released at approximately 5PM ET on 12/2/22 - and included 40 Phase 1 and Phase 2 files requiring review - we are asking for the full 14 calendar day interval previously documented, which would extend the due date to 12/16/22. | The RFP submission due date has been extended. | |||
| 14 | Functional Category numbering discrepancy in Symphony | The Functional Category numbers in Symphony do not match the Functional categories in the solicitation. For example, FC 2 in the solicitation is Cloud and Data Center, but it is listed as FC 3 in Symphony. Will the government please update Symphony to match the solicitation to avoid confusion when uploading documents? | This will be updated/corrected in Symphony. | |
| 15 | IDIQ PM POC Resume | The IDIQ PM POC Resume is listed as a phase 1 requirement and a phase 2 requirement. Will the government please confirm that the IDIQ PM POC Resume is due for Phase 2 submission? In addition, there is also a discrepancy between page limits. The IDIQ PM POC Resume (Self Scoring Artifact) listed in phase 1 has a one-page limit and the IDIQ PM POC Resume listed in Phase 2 has a two-page limit. Will the government please confirm that the IDIQ PM POC Resume is limited to two pages? | The PM resume is required for both Phase 1 (self scoring) and Phase 2 (Management Approach) and the page limit is two (2) pages. | |
| 16 | RFP Page 123, Section L.3 | The RFP stated “Small Business Offeror’s proposals submitted for functional categories reserved for small business must qualify as a small business at time of proposal in order to be awarded an IDIQ under the reserve” |
| Would the Government change the requirement to read “Small Business Offeror’s proposals submitted for functional categories reserved for small business must qualify as a small business at time of Solicitation Date in order to be awarded an IDIQ under the reserve”? | The word "submission" has been inserted after "at time of proposal" within the RFP for clarity. | ||
| 17 | RFP Page 127, Section L.11 | The RFP stated “Offerors may make minor adjustments to the file naming methodology”. |
| Would the Government specify the file naming methodology that is required for the proposal files? | For organization purposes, it is recommended to maintain the file names as shown in the files posted at SAM.gov to the greatest extent practicable. | |||
| 18 | Attachment J-29 | This attachment, column E, seems to indicate that the sub/team member/mentor protégé can team with other companies in a non-exclusive teaming arrangement. Please confirm. | This form is for identification purposes only and does not infer or create new terms or conditions for the RFP. | |
| 19 | RFP Page 129, Section L.12 | Would the Government specify the length of the time that the Offeror has to prepare for Phase 2 once they receive the advisory down-select notification? | After the Phase 2 Opt-in, the selected vendors will be given a reasonable amount of time to complete their Phase 2 submission. The exact date and time will be indicated on the RFP Amendment. | |
| 20 | Attachment J-30 | There are 2 J-30 attachments (Rev1 and Rev2). We assume that we should be using the Rev 2 of the J-30 to calculate the score for informational purpose. Is our assumption correct? | The duplicate J-30 will be deleted and J-30 Rev 2 will be updated at Amendment 1. | |
| 21 | RFP Page 137, Attachment J-30 | Under Relevancy, each past experience provided by a team member other than the prime counts 50 points. |
On page 137, last paragraph, the RFP stated “In accordance with SBA regulation at 13 C.F.R. 125.2, When an offer of a small business prime Contractor includes a proposed team of small business subcontractors and specifically identifies the first-tier subcontractor(s) in the proposal, the head of the agency must consider the capabilities, past performance, and experience of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime Contractor if the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime does not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance necessary for award.”
| If we, as a prime, are a small business and our subcontractor is also a small business, and we use our subcontractor past experience, should we give ourselves 100 points since it can be considered as the experience of the Small Business Prime Offeror? | Please see RFP section L.13.1. | |||
| 22 | Relevant Experience Project Form | For the REP form, can we attach the Verification Document(s) (FPDG-NG and Statement of Work) into the REP document, or should the verification documents be submitted as separate files? | Should be submitted as separate files. | |
| 23 | Relevant Experience Project Form | Can multiple orders placed under a BPA count as one (1) Relevant Experience? | Please see RFP section L.13.2: |
| A REP may consist of work completed | under a standalone contract, a TO issued under an IDIQ or BPA, or work completed spanning multiple orders placed under an IDIQ or BPA; however, simply holding an IDIQ contract or BPA without work examples is not sufficient. The Offeror must have performed work on a TO issued against the contract or BPA being referenced. Include all task and/or delivery order numbers being referenced within the REP. A singular project spanning multiple task orders under an existing multiple award contract (MAC) or Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) may be submitted; however, artifacts must demonstrate that the examples provided are for the same project. Offerors may claim points for the highest number of FTEs during the 3-year period claimed, so long as artifacts validate the number of FTEs during that period of performance. The parent contract shall be singular/shall not include multiple parent contract (IDIQ, BPA, GWAC, MAC, etc.) numbers. | ||
| 24 | RFP, page 136, Section REP Verification (Artifact) Requirements | The RFP stated “All award and modification documents provided are a part of the proposal submission must be signed by a Contracting Officer”. |
| Is the Award document enough as an REP Verification artifact or do we need to submit all modification documents also | At a minimum, Offerors should submit the original award document and final modification. Portions of relevant documents may be submitted to accompany artifacts, as needed, to ensure validation. | ||
| 25 | RFP page 137 | The RFP stated “Each REP must be ongoing or have been completed within the past 3 years prior to the solicitation CLOSING date”. |
| Since the closing date is currently unknown and has the potential to change, would the Government consider changing the requirement to read “Each REP must be ongoing or have been completed within the past 3 years prior to the solicitation RELEASE date.” | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. Added "Phase 1" to this section of L.13.2 for clarity. | ||
| 26 | RFP page 138 | The RFP stated “The following must be demonstrated within the proposal for credit: (1) the prospective prime Contractor is a small business; (2) the prospective prime does not independently demonstrate the past performance “necessary for award;” (3) the subcontractor is a first-tier sub; and (4) the subcontractor is itself a small business.” |
If the prospective prime only has 2 relevant past experience and needs a subcontractor (who is part of the team) 3rd relevant experience, does that satisfy condition #2 above? If the following are true, a Small Prime Offeror may use the past performance of its first-tier small subcontractor:
1) the prospective prime Contractor is a small business; (2) the prospective prime does not independently demonstrate the past performance “necessary for award;” (3) the subcontractor is a first-tier sub; and (4) the subcontractor is itself a small business.”
27 PPQ Attachments (J-15, J-17, J-19, J-21, J-22) and J-30 Self-scoring sheet The PPQ stated that if CPARS are available, the Offeror has to use CPARS and not PPQ attachments. However, the CPARS does not have an Overall rating similar to Section 5.0 in the PPQ.
| How should the Offeror fill out the scoring worksheet if CPARS are available but they are missing the Overall ratings? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | ||
| 28 | RFP page 147 | Since there are 88 holiday hours and 120 hours of annual leave, the paid time off should be 208 hours and not 200 off hours. |
| Please confirm. | Work hours / holidays have been updated in the RFP. | ||
| 29 | RFP page 154, Section M.4 | The requirement stated that the Offeror must be a U.S. based firm with a current Top Secret (or higher) Facility Clearance. |
The requirement also stated that the JV itself or the individual partner(s) to the JV must possess a current Secret Facility Clearance.
| We recommend that the Government requires both Offeror and JV or the JV individual partner(s) to have Top Secret Facility Clearance. | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |||
| 30 | RFP page 136, section L.13.2 | Can a small business offeror use the past performance of a large business to satisfy the requirements of the REP? | REPs of the prime or the sub may be submitted, as described in RFP Sections L.12.1, L.13.1 and L.13.2. | |
| 31 | J-18 | The Attachment J-18 requires offerors to provide the Final Amount Invoiced or Amount Invoiced to Date. This gives an unfair disadvantage to offerors who are in the initial option years of their contract. Would the government please change this field to be the Total Contract Value, as supported by the FPDS report? | No. The government will evaluate Final Amount Invoiced or Amount Invoiced to Date as future work is not guaranteed. | |
| 32 | J-18 | When using work completed spanning multiple orders placed under an IDIQ or BPA, within J-18 field for Final Amount Invoiced, do we input the Final Amount Invoiced as an aggregate total of all task orders being claimed to support the REP? | For the task orders being claimed, the total estimated value shall be provided in the aggregate. | |
| 33 | RFP page 135, L.13.2 | The RFP reads: “ISSO – Offeror shall provide a copy of current certification(s) of registration with a viable registrar/accreditation body stamp (ISSO).” Should “ISSO” be “ISO”? | This has been updated to ISO. | |
| 34 | RFP page 136, L.13.2 | The RFP reads: “Using the REP Form, the Offeror shall identify up to three recent…” In this use, does “Offeror” refer to the Prime contractor only, and thus mean that REPs must come from the Prime contractor? | Please see RFP Section L for more information on REP form content and claiming the credit of subcontractors. | |
| 35 | RFP 138, L.13.2 | The RFP reads: “(2) the prospective prime does not independently demonstrate the past performance “necessary for award;” If we are using the past performance of a small business subcontractor for 1 REP, but we are using two (2) other REPs from us as the prime contractor, will we be evaluated negatively as not “independently demonstrating the past performance necessary for award”? | No; so long as the prime offeror meets the criteria to claim the capabilities, experience, or performance of its subcontractors (see section L) the examples provided will not be evaluated differently or assessed different points in self scoring than if they were provided by the prime Offeror. | |
| 36 | RFP pages 134, 143, 156, and 135; sections L6, L.17.2, M2, L.13.2 | The RFP is inconsistent regarding whether the IDIQ PM’s resume should be submitted in Phase 1 or Phase 2. Table L6 on page 134, the instructions on page 143 section L.17.2, and Table M2 on page 156 indicate it should be in Phase 2, while Section L.13.2 on page 135 indicate the resume should be submitted in Phase 1. Please clarify if the PM’s resume should be included in Phase 1. | PM required for Phase 2. RFP has been updated to reflect. |
The PM resume is required for both Phase 1 (self scoring) and Phase 2 (Management Approach). The table has been updated to show a max number of "2" pages for the resume.
| 37 | RFP page 123-124, section L.5 | Will the government permit a second round of questions after Phase 2 notifications? | The Government does not intend to at this time. | |
| 38 | RFP page 127, section L.11 | The RFP reads: “Offerors may submit completed attachments preserving the source file font types and sizes.” However, some of the attachments have font sizes smaller than the allowed 12 point font size. For instance, the REP form is set to 10 point font. Should offerors use the pre-set font within the attachments, or increase the font size to the dictated 12 point size? | Offerors may use pre--set font size in attachments | |
| 39 | Attachment J-23 | The solicitation deadline in the DD-254 is incorrect. Will the government provide a corrected DD-254, or should offerors use the attachment as it stands? | A corrected DD254 will be provided as part of Amendment 1. | |
| 40 | Attachment J-23 | Are subcontractors required to provide completed DD-254s with the Phase 1 submission? | Yes, this is required for Phase 1 submission as shown in table L3 in the RFP. | |
| 41 | RFP page 123, Table L3 | For Attachment J-29, the RFP reads: “Only include attachment pages, do not add.” Can the government please clarify what this means? | Table L3 has been updated. | |
| 42 | RFP page 133-134, Table L6 | Table L6 implies that many of the required documents should be consolidated into two separate volumes. Doing so will likely create extremely large file sizes exceeding 20MB. Would the government consider allowing offerors to submit files separately? For instance, the TIP plan would be a separate file, the CMMI certification would be a separate file, etc. | Yes. Offerors may submit multiple files within the repository/Symphony tool to meet the government's requirement. | |
| 43 | RFP page 141 Section L.14 | The RFP reads: “For each REP provided in Volume 1, the Offeror must submit a corresponding Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) submitted using the appropriate attachment.” However, within the PPQ itself, it reads: “the Offeror must submit either a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation or this Attachment. If CPARS evaluation is available, it must be used, and this Attachment J-19 should not be submitted.” Can the government please confirm that the instructions within the PPQ, namely that a CPARS must be used in lieu of the PPQ if available, supersede the RFQ instructions to submit the PPQ? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 44 | RFP page 143 Section L.17.1 | The RFP reads: “The Offeror shall also describe its management solution including the following topics:” However, no text follows this colon; the next text to follow is the subsequent section regarding the PM’s resume. Can the government please provide this text? | This has been corrected. | |
| 45 | RFP page 144 Section L.17.3 | Several of the bullets in this section do not seem to relate to Quality Control, namely: “The approach and methodologies to the planning, execution, tracking, invoicing, and reporting of the tasks awarded under this contract. • The approach for managing multiple TOs for this effort, including: • The tools and methodologies for planning the activities of its team(s), • Scheduling, organizing, and deploying resources, • Controlling of task execution, monitoring progress, status reporting, resolving critical issues, planning for subsequent phases of work. Earned Value Management.” Can the government confirm that these sections should be included in the Quality Control Solution section? | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |
| 46 | Attachment J-33 | Attachment J-33 contains tracked changes. Is this the final version of this document? | This has been corrected for Amendment 1. | |
| 47 | RFP page 133 Table L5; RFP page 154 section M.4 | RFP page 133 reads “Offerors shall possess, and provide proof of, a valid Secret Facility Clearance or higher at the time of proposal submission.” However, RFP page 154 reads: “To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be a U.S. based firm with a current Top Secret (or higher) Facility Clearance.” Please clarify what level facility clearance (Secret or Top Secret) is required at proposal submission. | Please read RFP section H.9.2. Final Secret Facility Security clearance is required at time of proposal SUBMISSION. Final Top Secret Facility Security clearance is required for task order performance. | |
| 48 | RFP page 143 section L.17.1; RFP page 161 section M.13.1 a | The Program Management is only allocated 1 page; however, the list of what will be evaluated in section M.13.1a is quite long and will be seemingly impossible to adequately cover within 1 page. Would the government consider increasing the page limits to 3 pages minimum for the Program Management section? | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |
| 49 | Advisory Down-Select | How long will the Offeror have to respond to phase 2 after the Advisory Down-Select? | After the Phase 2 Opt-in, the selected vendors will be given a reasonable amount of time to complete their Phase 2 submission. The exact date and time will be indicated on the RFP Amendment. | |
| 50 | J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev1 vs J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2 | The government released two versions of J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE. J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev1 has no cap on points and J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2 has a cap of 150pts max. Can the government please confirm which version is correct? | The duplicate J-30 will be deleted and J-30 Rev 2 will be updated at Amendment 1. | |
| 51 | Evolve RFP 19AQMM23R0042 Table L3: Phase 1 Page Restrictions | Table L3: Phase 1 Page Restrictions states the resume should be 1 page but L.13.2 Phase 1 – Volume 1a: Self-Scoring Artifact(s) Requirements states the resume should be 2 pages. Will the government conform the solicitation to state the correct length of the resume? | The PM resume is required for both Phase 1 (self scoring) and Phase 2 (Management Approach). The table has been updated to show a max number of "2" pages for the resume. | |
| 52 | L.14 | Phase 1 – Volume 2: Past Performance | L.14 Phase 1 – Volume 2: Past Performance states that a PPQ is required for each REP, however Attachment J-15 states that a PPQ is required only if a CPAR is not available. Will the government add language to the solicitation that matches the language in the attachment that states "NOTE: For each Relevant Experience Project (REP) (Attachment J-14) submitted, the Offeror must submit either a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation or this Attachment. If CPARS evaluation is available, it must be used and this Attachment J-15 should not be submitted"? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. |
| 68 | REP Project Value Labor | The REP form requests "Project Labor Value (ODCs and Indirects may not be included)". |
| Offerors submitting a T&M contract, the labor rates on the contract include indirects. Can the government clarify that Project Labor Value is labor dollars for services and that ODCs and materials are what is intended to be excluded? | Project Labor Value reported should reflect labor dollars for service only. | |||
| 69 | J-29, Pg #133 | If we form a CTA, will that count as one company? Also, can we claim score as prime from each CTA member's REP? | CTA is not a recognized arrangement under the Evolve RFP (Reference: FAR 9.6). | |
| 71 | Recertification | The RFP states: "G.4.3 Small Business Size and Socio-Economic Recertification: IAW FAR Clause 52.219-28, all small business prime contract holders shall re-represent their size and socio-economic status upon contract year 5 (and every year thereafter) prior to the exercise of each option." |
| Please confirm that a small business prime can compete as a large business prime if they are unable to recertify as a small business prime in year 5. | Please see "Graduation" under Section H.4.1 in the RFP. | |||
| 72 | L.14 Phase 1 – Volume 2: Past Performance pg. 141 paragraph 1 | Cites using attachment J-21_App Development PPQ and does not mention CPARS. While the attachment itself states: “If CPARS evaluation is available, it must be used and this Attachment J-21 should not be submitted.” Are CPARS to be used if they exist? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 73 | L.13.1 Phase 1 – Volume 1a: Superior Qualifications (Self-Scoring Sheet) pg. 134 paragraph 1: | Is J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev1 (3).xlsx or J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2.xlsx more representative of the form in Symphony? | The duplicate J-30 will be deleted and J-30 Rev 2 will be updated at Amendment 1. | |
| 74 | L.5 Communications and Questions, page 123, paragraph 3 | The registration link to the Vendor Training Session on December 14, 2022, actually opens the Zoom meeting session. |
That is not the correct link for registration.
| Please provide the correct link. | Registration is not required for the Apex Zoom registration training session. | |||
| 75 | Evolve+RFP+19AQMM23R0042.pdf | Section L.4 Proposal Schedule page 123 paragraph 3 states: “… Phase 2 proposal submissions due date will be indicated via RFP amendment.” | ||
| Also section L.12 Proposal Requirements page 129 paragraph 2 states “The Government’s intent for establishing an advisory down-select at Phase 1 is to minimize proposal development costs for those Offerors with little or no chance of receiving an award.” Given this, how long will the government give down-selected Offerors to complete their Phase 2 submissions following notification? | After the Phase 2 Opt-in, the selected vendors will be given a reasonable amount of time to complete their Phase 2 submission. The exact date and time will be indicated on the RFP Amendment. | |||
| 76 | RFP Pg 42-43, D.4 Warranty Notification, Paragraph 2 | Paragraph 2 of this section states, "Failure of the Contractor to fulfill any such commitment shall render the Contractor liable for liquidated or other damages due to the Government under the terms of this contract." As that language references unstated liquidated damages, will the Government please quantify those liquidated damages, or otherwise provide additional detail? | Added the following language to D.4: "The CO will consider the guidance of FAR 11.501 at the time of solicitation for individual task orders. If the CO determines that liquidated damages are appropriate for the task order, FAR 52.211-11 will be inserted in the task order solicitation with a specified daily liquidated damage dollar amount. Awardees competing for the task order may ask additional questions regarding the specified liquidated damages after the task order solicitation is issued." | |
| 77 | RFP pg 124, L.6 Delivery of Proposal, 2nd paragraph | The second paragraph of L.6 identifies the Solicitation Number as 19AQMM21R0042; however, the actual RFP number is 19AQM23R0042. Please correct the number. | The number has been corrected to 19AQMM23R0042. | |
| 78 | RFP pg 126, L.8 Total Number of Funcitional Category IDIQ Awards, Paragraph 1 | Section L states, "Offerors may provide proposal(s) for one or more functional categories as described herein." Is there a limit to how many Functional Categories a company can win? | No, there are not bidding or award restrictions at the IDIQ level. | |
| 79 | RFP pg 130, L.12 Proposal Requirements, Paragraph 1 | The RFP states, "This notification will provide submission feedback and notify Offerors whether or not they are competitive for award and whether they are encouraged (or not) to participate in Phase 2." - Will the Government provide the evaluation rating/soring for phase I? | The Government will provide each offeror feedback regarding evaluation relative to their own submission(s). | |
| 80 | RFP pg 133, L.13 Phase 1 – Evolve Minimum Standard Criteria | In the past, the Government has emphasized the value of teaming at the task order level. This increases industries' ability to introduce niche capabilities and address evolving customer requirements over the life of the program. Will the Government allow new teammates to be introduced as needed on a task order by task order basis? | The government may consider allowing prime awardees to add team members once the IDIQs have been awarded. However, team changes must be requested in advance and approved by the Contracting Officer. | |
| 81 | RFP pg 136, L.13.2 Phase 1 – Volume 1a: Self-Scoring Artifact(s) Requirements e. Past Experience Artifact Requirements | The REP Verification (Artifact) Requirements section beginning on page 136 lists 6 acceptable documents that can be provided as verification; however, the J-16 and other REP forms list 10 verification documents. Which list is correct and how many of the items are required? | The acceptable verification documents list has been corrected in the RFP. | |
| 82 | RFP pg 141, L.14 Phase 1 - Volume 2: Past Performance, paragraph 1 | Section L.14 states "For each REP provided in Volume 1, the Offeror must submit a corresponding Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) submitted using the appropriate attachment:". However, Attachment J-20, Relevant Experience Project (REP) form indicates that a PPQ is needed when a CPAR is not available. Please clarify. Are PPQs required even if CPARS are available? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 83 | RFP pg 144, L.17.3 Quality Control Solution - 3 pages, Bullet 7 | The end of the last bullet includes "Earned Value Management." Is this intended to be an additional bullet? If so, please provide additional explanation of the Earned Value information to be provided. | This has been removed. | |
| 84 | RFP pg 147, Section L.19 Phase 2 – Volume 6: Price Proposal | Productive hours are defined by the RFP as follows: (1) The 1,880 RFP-specified estimated productive hours are based on 2,080 annual hours minus 200 paid time off hours; (2) The 200 hours reflects 88 holiday hours (10 days x 8 hours/day) plus 120 hours (15 annual leave days x 8 hours/day). As the 88 hours identified reflect 11 Government holidays, adding 120 hours for annual leave results in 208 hours, not 200, resulting in 1872 productive hours. Please clarify whether productive hours used in the proposals should be 1,880 or 1,872. | The total hours have been updated. | |
| 85 | RFP pages 128 and 138, Table L3: Phase 1 Page Restrictions L.13.3 Phase I- Volume 1b: Technical Challenge White Paper, Page 128 last row in Table L3 and Paragraph 1 on page 138 | Table L3 states White Paper page limitations is 3 pages and the artifacts are 2 pages. On page 138 section L.13.3 states, "Offerors may include an appendix of no more than two (2) pages of graphs, diagrams, etc. which matches Table L3. |
Section L.13.3 also states, "The Offeror’s submission may include the following artifacts: project plan, discovery activities, migration strategies, risk mitigation plans, and limited impact on operations approach."
| Please confirm that the artifacts (project plan, discovery activities, migration strategies, risk mitigation plans, and limited impact on operations approach.) are outside of page count. | Offerors may submit additional artifacts beyond the two-page appendix of graphs, diagrams, etc. Each additional artifact is limited to two pages. | |||
| 86 | RFP pages 129 and 150-151, Table L4: Phase 2 Page Restrictions; and Price Narrative Instructions in L.19, Row 5 on Phase 2 Page Restrictions | The Phase 2 Page Restriction table lists a 3 page limit for the Price Proposal Narrative and Price Assumptions, Conditions or Exceptions. Section L.19 provides a long list of items required in this section including: Rationale the Offeror applied to develop the rates within the proposed pricing workbook; Pricing Assumptions, Conditions, or Exceptions; and Subcontracting cost/price analysis report(s). (Cost/price analysis technique(s), Summary Findings, Detailed findings, Basis for the determination and Proposed subcontract prices. - 3 Pages is insufficient. We recommend that the Price Narrative be outside of page count. | The price proposal narrative page limits for the IDIQ pricing in Phase 2 are as stated in the RFP. | |
| 87 | RFP pages 130-131 and 159, Table L5: Evolve Minimum Standard Criteria; and M.8.3 Compliances Check, Column 1 - Cover Letter (2-page limit) | The Government is requiring a lot of information in the cover letter including, an executive summary, a brief history of the company’s experience as it relates to this requirement, and a long list of other items. Would the Government please increase the page count from 2 pages to 3 pages? | The page limit for the Cover Letter is as stated in the RFP. | |
| 88 | RFP pg 149, L.19 Phase 2 – Volume 6: Price Proposal, Under Pricing Workbooks | On page 149 of the RFP, the Government provides target dates for IT Management Services pricing purposes. Should these same dates be used for the other Functional Categories as well? Please note that the Six-Month option to Extend shows a full year vice just six-months. | This should read "all functional categories" and has been corrected in the RFP | |
| 89 | J-27, RFP pages 144-145, J-27 SCRM Worksheet L.17.6 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) - No Page Limit. Whole section in J-27 Entire section L.17.6 | RFP Section L.17.6 includes instructions to "include our approach to developing relationships with subcontractors and teaming partners, and specifically how it will continually provide DOS with the best sources of solutions and services by completing Attachment J-27." However, J-27 asks a series of Yes/No questions and then requests information about how we conduct each process. Simply completing J-27 does not fully address the L.17.6 instructions. Should we add additional narrative in J-27 to address the broader L.17.6 instructions? If the answer is no, where should the additional data be provided? | Any SCRM narrative may be included with the completed J-27 at the end of the offeror's proposal Volume 4 and will not count against the Management Approach page limitation as stated in the RFP. | |
| 90 | J-30, J-30 - Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE, Network & Telecommunication Sheet, Lines 52-64 | The Government states, " The submitted project(s) demonstrate an overall rating of EXCEPTIONAL in Section 5 of the PPQ" 100 points are awarded, 75 for Very Good, and 50 for Satisfactory. However, per the PPQ, if a CPAR is available we must submit it and not the PPQ. CPARs do not have overall ratings. How would the government like us to rate ourselves when submitting a CPAR? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 91 | J-30, J-30 - Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE, line 34 | J-30 states on Line 34 states, "The submitted projects demonstrate a breadth of experience across the Functional Category's sub-capability areas? SELECT HIGHEST VALUE APPLICABLE." - Is this intended to be a rating of the aggregate of all submitted projects? In other words, for Network & Telecommunications, a company could claim 150 points if they submitted 3 REPS that collectively show experience across at least 8 sub-capability areas? If this is not correct, please clarify. | "Highest value applicable" in this context is singular and not in the aggregate. | |
| 93 | J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev1.xlsx as it pertains to Applications Development Services Functional Category | Specific to Application Development Services (Functional Category 3) Self Scoring, may CMMI Development be used for assessing points in lieu of CMMI Services as it is more directly related to the functional area? | Yes | |
| 94 | L.13.3.3. Application Development Services Technical Challenge | Can you confirm the requirement is to deliver a production system within 14 days as opposed to a delivering a production system within an unknown timeframe that can support the end-to-end process to close out a repatriation request within 14 days. | 14 days to deliver production system. | |
| 95 | RFP, page 36, Table C9 | Please confirm the acronym SOE refers to Standard Operating Environment, or if not please specify the meaning of the acronym. | Confirmed | |
| 96 | Soliciation 19AQMM23R0042 | Would the Government please consider extending the due date for questions to 12 December 2022 at 4PM EST. As there are many detailed attachments to review and fully comprehend the type of response the Government is expecting, we are respectfully requesting additional time on question submittal. | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |
| 97 | J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2 | The scoring sheet states "The submitted project(s) demonstrate an overall rating of EXCEPTIONAL in Section 5 of the PPQ." If the offeror has a CPARS and is precluded from using a PPQ, will the government conform the self scoring sheet to reflect that a CPARS rating will be used as the scoring mechanism? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 98 | J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2 | The scoring sheet states "The submitted project(s) demonstrate an overall rating of EXCEPTIONAL in Section 5 of the PPQ." If the offeror has a CPARS, since the J-15_IT Management PPQ states that a CPARS has to be used if available, how will the government assess the CPARS ratings when the CPARS provides a range of ratings in multiple areas, rated in accordance with a five scale rating system (i.e., exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory)? For example, the offeror has the following ratings QUALITY: Exceptional; SCHEDULE: Exceptional; MANAGEMENT: Very Good; and REGULATORY COMPLIANCE: Satisfactory; what would the overall rating be considered as? | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. PPQs include an "overall" rating. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 99 | L.14 Phase 1 - Volume 2: Past Performance | Can a CPARS be used in lieu of a completed Past Performance Questionnaire? It can be difficult to obtain a signed PPQ from the COR/COTR due to work constraints, etc. | Up to 3 PPQs may be submitted. CPARS may not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. The PPQ attachments have been updated to reflect this RFP requirement. | |
| 100 | J-30 EVOLVE Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE | It appears that the minimum project labor value for each project is set at $5M. Will the State Department consider relevant prime contracts with a value of under $5M? | There is not a "baseline" score for self-scoring. Each Offeror begins with zero points until points are earned. | |
| 102 | RFP L.5 Communications and Questions | Will the Government consider extending the response date for questions to allow industry more time to adequately review solicitation material? | The due date has been extended. | |
| 103 | J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet | The Government provided two versions of J-30, rev1 and rev2. | ||
| Q: Is rev2 the correct version? | A draft copy of the sample self-scoring form was inadvertently posted and has been deleted at Amendment 1. The sample self scoring form that reflects the submission format in Symphony is named "J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet SAMPLE_rev2." | |||
| 104 | RFP, C.12 Key Personnel Requirements (All Functional Categories), pp. 40-41 & J-30_Evolve Self-Scoring Sheet, IDIQ Program Manager (PM), All Tabs | J-30 does not reflect all of the PM qualifications required in C.12. In addition, there do not seem to be any separate evaluation criteria for the PM in RFP Section M. | ||
| Q: If a PM does not meet all requirements of Section C.12, such as managing a “project of similar scope…within the past three (3) years with a total contract value greater than $10M and global delivery in a highly complex environment,” will an Offeror still be able to receive the 200 points available on J-30, or will the failure to meet the minimum C.12 requirements disqualify the Offeror? | C.12 establishes minimum qualifications. Self Scoring does not establish minimums. | |||
| 105 | RFP, C.12 Key Personnel Requirements (All Functional Categories), p. 40, paragraph 2, bullet a | We assume that “global delivery” means that the project involves systems used on a global basis, whether or not project team members are deployed globally. | ||
| Q: Is this assumption correct? | Thank you for your question. IRM will not provide this information at this time. | |||
| 106 | RFP, F-3 Task Order Period of Performance, p. 49 & J-9A, J-9B, J-9C, J-9D, J-9E (Tab 2) | Task Order period of performance can extend beyond the end of the IDIQ; however, the pricing table does not enable Offerors to provide pricing after the six-month option period after Option Year 6. | ||
| Q: Will the Government update the pricing spreadsheets to enable pricing to be provided for the full possible 10-year Task Order period of performance? | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |||
| 107 | RFP, H.9.1 Overall Security Requirements, p. 88, a & RFP, L.13 Phase 1 – Evolve Minimum Standard Criteria, Table L5, Element: Security Clearance, p. 133, 2nd row & RFP M.4 Eligibility for Award, p. 154, b and c | Section H.9.1 states that a Top-Secret facility security clearance is required. Section L.13 says a Secret Facility Clearance or higher is required. Section M.4 in paragraph b states that a Top Secret or higher facility clearance is required; however, paragraph c says a Secret Facility Clearance is required for JVs. | ||
| Q: Will the Government confirm that a Top-Secret Facility Clearance is required for all offerors, including JVs, and update these RFP sections to be consistent? | The RFP will not be amended as requested at this time. | |||
| 108 | RFP, Section K – Representations and Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents, p. 114 (Instructions) | The RFP says, “Additionally, the Offeror is required to complete the following representations and certifications and submit them with proposal submissions.” However, the three provisions cited in Table K-1 are not the same as the provisions included in Sections K.1 through K.4. | ||
| Q: Will the Government please clarify the specific representations and certifications Offerors must complete and submit? | Table 1 identified the additional Representations and Certifications that may be required at the Task Order level. Paragraph K.1 FAR 52.204-24 is required. K.2 is only required if applicable. K.3 through K.4 outline other Representations and Certifications that apply. |
Additionally, Annual Representations and Certifications are required in SAM.gov per FAR 52.204-7
| 109 | RFP, L.1 FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998), p. 120 & RFP, L.2 FAR and DOSAR Provisions, pp. 120-122 | The representations and certifications here are not the same as those mentioned in Section K. | ||
| Q: Are offerors required to respond to everything in Table L1 and in Section L.2? | Please see updates to section K for clarity. | |||
| 110 | RFP, L.2 DOSAR 652.219-70 Department of State Subcontracting Goals (Apr 2004), p. 122 | Q: Are these percentages stated in terms of total subcontracted dollars or total contract value? | The percentages apply to total subcontracted dollars to each of the small business socioeconomic designation categories. | |
| 111 | RFP, L.8 Total Number of Functional Category IDIQ Awards, pp. 125-126 | The small number of large business awards will result in the same giant companies winning awards across multiple FC2 – FC5 categories and make it impossible for highly capable emerging large businesses to obtain awards. The presence of growing, highly innovative emerging large businesses would provide the Department of State with much more competition, more innovation, and much better pricing for Evolve large business task orders. There is a Federal Government precedent, on the NIH CIO-SP4 solicitation, for including an “Emerging Large Business” category. | ||
| Q: Will the Government add an “Emerging Large Business” category for large businesses with annual revenue less than $250M with four (4) awards per functional category? | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |||
| 112 | RFP, L.8 Total Number of Functional Category IDIQ Awards, pp. 125-126 | Q: To provide more competition and to prevent any OCI issues between functional categories, will the Government limit prime contractors to one award, i.e., no company could be a prime contractor in more than one functional category? | Thank you for the recommendation; however, the RFP will not be updated as requested at this time. | |
| 113 | RFP, L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table L3, “Past Experience Verification”, p. 128 & RFP, L.13.2 Phase 1 – Volume 1a: Self Scoring Artifact(s) Requirements, pp. 135-137 | Q: Should this section of our response include the Past Performance Artifact Requirements cited in paragraph e. that starts on the bottom of page 135 and continues to page 137? (We recommend the Government update the RFP to make this clear.) | The RFP has been revised for clarity. Artifacts should be submitted by uploading to the Symphony tool in the Projects/Past Performance section. | |
| 114 | RFP, L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table L3, “Security Clearance”, p. 128 & “Attachment J-23 Bidder’s DD Form 254” | These requirements are on separate rows in Table L3. In Table L5 on page 133, there is only one row, so the submission requirement is unclear. | ||
| Q: In addition to the DD Form 254, do Offerors need to submit any other artifact to meet the Security Clearance requirement? | If necessary due to DCSA rules and regulations, attachments may be included to accompany the DD254. Tables L3 and L5 have been updated. | |||
| 115 | RFP, L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table L3, “PPQs”, p. 128, Row 9 | Some customers, particularly Government customers, will not provide completed PPQs to contractors. They have told us that some contractors have altered these documents before submission. | ||
| Q: Will the Government provide an alternate method for customers to submit PPQs directly to the Government? | No; Offerors are required to submit PPQs directly to Symphony. | |||
| 116 | RFP, L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table L3, “IDIQ PM POC Resume (Self Scoring Artifact)” & L4, “IDIQ PM POC Resume”, p. 128 | The IDIQ PM Resume is included in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 submission requirements. | ||
| Q: Should Offerors submit the IDIQ PM Resume as part of Phase 1, Phase 2, or both phases? | Added the following language to L.17.2: "This PM POC shall be the same individual proposed for Volume 1a and Volume 4 (the Resume is required for both Phases 1 and 2)." | |||
| 117 | RFP, L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Table L3, “IDIQ PM POC Resume (Self Scoring Artifact)” and L4, “IDIQ PM POC Resume”, p. 128 | Table L3 says the PM resume is one page; Table L4 says it is two pages. | ||
| Q: Will the Government update the RFP to indicate a 2-page limit for the IDIQ PM resume? | Table L3 has been updated to two (2) pages for PM resume. |
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 .