J-Attachment 13 - Q and A _With Gov Responses_Amend 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 169 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GLOBALCAP Request for Proposals (RFP)
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM23R0142
About this file
This document is a request for proposals (RFP) from the Department of State for global advisory and assistance services under the contract name GLOBALCAP. The RFP seeks advisory, training, and operational support services across sub-Saharan Africa and other regions. Key details include that the Department of State intends to award up to seven indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with both full-and-open and small business set-aside competitive pools. The small business pool is reserved for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and women-owned small businesses. Task orders under $3 million will be set aside for the small business pool. The RFP requires pricing for labor categories, equipment, and ballistic certifications to be provided at the IDIQ level. Questions are due by August 21st and proposals are due November 21st, 2023.
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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
General
| Document Name | Page No. | Section | Contractor Question | Government Response | |||
| 1 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 176 | L.22 | Could the Government please confirm that the signed and dated Cover Letter referenced in L.22 is required in Volume I Technical only? | The reference to Cover Letter has been removed. The government has added clarifying language around the use of 'Title Page' | ||
| 2 | RFP | 176-177 | L.22/L.23 | Will the Government please clarify where in Volume I the required Cover Letter should be included in the Proposal Organization? | See question 1. | ||
| 3 | RFP | - | L | Would the government please confirm that the RFP uses “title page”, “cover letter”, and “cover page” interchangeably in terms of its requirements? | See question 1. | ||
| 4 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 176 | L.22 | Could the Government please confirm that the Cover Letter is exempted from page limits? | See question 1. | ||
| 5 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0145 | 175 | L.13 | Email submissions - is there a size limitation? | The government has updated the email submission size limitations to 20MB, please see Section L.13 for the updated language. | ||
| 6 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 175 | L.13 | Is there any size limitation on emails in regard to the proposal submittal? | See question 5. | ||
| 7 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 175 | L.13 | Section L.13 states "It is acceptable for the Offeror to send multiple emails to ensure all proposal documents are received." Can the Government provide the email size limitations for proposal submission e.g., the inbox will only accept 10MBs? | See question 5. | ||
| 8 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 175 of 216 | L.3 Delivery of Proposal | While the RFP communicates that “it is acceptable for the Offeror to send multiple emails to ensure all proposal documents are received,” it does not limit the file size for each attachment and / or each email. | |||
| Question: Will the Government please establish a size limit – in megabytes (MB) – for each attachment and / or each email that is part of an Offeror’s proposal submission? | See question 5. | ||||||
| 9 | 175 | L.13 | Is there any size limitation on emails in regard to the proposal submittal? | See question 5. | |||
| 10 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 175 | L.13 | *Is there any size limitation on emails in regard to the proposal submittal? | See question 5. | ||
| 11 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 178, 179, 188, 189 | L.23.4.2; L.24 | Section L.23.4.2 states that the Offeror can provide the price proposal narrative file in Word or PDF and the supporting information files in Word, PDF, or Excel. However, the Government does not provide information on the format(s) in which the other volumes can be submitted. Can the Government please confirm that the remaining volumes can be submitted in PDF? | Added statement that says Proposal documents (all volumes) must be submitted in Word, PDF, or Excel. | ||
| 12 | RFP | 187 | L.23.3 | Would the government please confirm that completed PPQs submitted for other proposals may be submitted in lieu of new PPQs? | The offeror could do that. However, this would not be their benefit as our PPQ is tailored to gain the most pertinent information as it relates to "Relevancy." If Offerors submit a different PPQ it is potential for a lower Relevancy rating. | ||
| 13 | RFP | 187 | L.23.3 | Would the government please confirm that submission of CPARS in lieu of PPQs is allowed? | No. Furthermore, our PPQ's are designed to gain specific information related to Relevancy. If Offerors rely solely on CPARS the Government will not have the Relevancy information needed and Offerors would potentially receive a lower Relevancy score. | ||
| 14 | Solicitation | 197 | L.23.5.4 | The Government states, "Please note the SAM registration requirements per FAR 52.204-7 requiring any offeror, including any Offeror organized as a JV, to have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission." Are we to include a copy of our SAM registration in the Business volume? | This is allowable. | ||
| 15 | RFP | 183 | L.23.2 | Would the government please confirm that points (c) and (d) are duplicative and remove one of them? | Paragraph (d) was removed since it was duplicative. | ||
| 16 | RFP | 205 | M.11 | RE: Subfactor 2 Resource Management Plan evaluation criteria of approach includes b-e. "a" is missing. Can the Government please confirm there is no criteria for a? | This has been updated to reflect the correct numbering. | ||
| 17 | Solicitation | 203 | M.9 | The Government states, "Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Section C, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those | |||
| requirements and their associated risks." The Section L requirements do not appear to ask for a technical approach to Section C (SOW). It asks for a technical approach to the STO only." Please provide clarification. Would the Government like the offerors to provide our technical approach to both the STO and SOW. If so, will the Government increase the 200 page count for all of the volumes? | The Government has increased the page limit to 225 which will include Volume I, Volume II and Volume III. | ||||||
| 18 | RFP | 179 | L.23.1 | Sub-Factor 1 asks for "proposed partnering/subcontracting agreements" for the sample TO, yet we don't know what country the sample TO is in, which greatly influences what subcontractors we would provide. We request that teaming agreements are not needed for Sub-Factor 1 and instead be included for our overarching team as described in Volume 2 - Management. | This has been removed in the Sample TO Sub-Factor 1 section. | ||
| 19 | RFP | 179 | L.23 | Sub-Factor 1 asks for "proposed partnering/subcontracting agreements" for the sample TO--yet subcontracting agreements are not asked for in any other place in the proposal. Would the government please confirm that only the subcontracting agreements pertaining to execution of the sample TO are being asked for in this section? | See question 18. | ||
| 20 | RFP | 178 | L.23.1 | RE: "The quality control plan, risk analysis plan and proposed partnering/subcontracting agreements shall |
include the same criteria established in the RFP (defined below)."
We assume it was the Government's intention to refer to the criteria established for the IDIQ contract. Please confirm. The government has updated this section for clarity. Section L.24.1 (Formerly L.23.1) refers to the Sample Task Order, and Sub-Factor 2: Contract Risk Analysis Plan refers to the IDIQ.
Separately, L.24.2 (Formerly L.23.2) refers to the IDIQ.
| 21 | RFP | 180 | L.23.1 | Would the government please provide further clarification on what "same criteria established in the RFP" applies to the QCP, risk analysis plan, and proposed partnering/subcontracting agreements, as this information appears to be missing. | See question 20. |
| 22 | RFP | 178 | L.23.1 | RE: "The quality control plan, risk analysis plan and proposed partnering/subcontracting agreements shall |
include the same criteria established in the RFP (defined below)."
| We assume it was the Government's intention to refer to the criteria established for the IDIQ contract. Please confirm. | See question 20. | |||||
| 23 | Solicitation | 178 | L.23.1 | The Government states, "The Offeror shall submit a technical and management approach in response to Attachment J-11 – |
Sample Task Order. The response shall include:
(a) Technical Approach
(b) Management Approach (Organizational Structure and Key Personnel)
(c) Risk Analysis Plan
(d) Quality Control Plan
(e) Proposed Partnering/Subcontracting Agreements."
| There are no instructions for the Management Approach on page 180. Is this management plan specific to the Sample Task Order and/or the IDIQ? | The government has updated this section for clarity. | ||||||
| 24 | RFP | 180 | L.23.1 | Section F.4 states that "there are no geographic limitations for TOs to be awarded under this contract", yet Sub-Factor 2 asks us to identify "potential risks or problems in operating in the geographic region..." Would the government please 1) confirm that Sub-Factor 2 is meant to be an IDIQ-wide Risk Analysis Plan, and 2) clarify which geographic regions (or types of regions) it would like to see risk analysis for? | Yes. The government has updated this section for clarity. |
The government has made updates to show "a focus to sub-Saharan Africa and surrounding region (or equivalent austere environments in other parts of the world)."
| 25 | Solicitation | 203 | M.9 | The Government states, "b. Sub-Factor 2: Risk Analysis Plan." Should this read Contract Risk Analysis Plan as in Section L? | See question 23. |
| 26 | Solicitation | 202 | M.9 | The Government states, "Factor 1: Technical |
a. Sub-Factor 1: Sample Task Order
• Technical Approach
• Management Approach (Organizational Structure and Key Personnel)
• Risk Analysis Plan
• Quality Control Plan
• Proposed Partnering/Subcontracting Agreements
b. Sub-Factor 2: Risk Analysis Plan
| Are two Risk Analysis Plans required (i.e., one for the STO and one for the IDIQ)? | Yes. The government has updated this section for clarity. | ||||||
| 27 | RFP | 179, 180 | L.23.1 | Would the government please confirm that the Risk Analysis Plan contained within Sub-Factor 1: Sample Task Order is separate from the Risk Analysis Plan located in Sub-Factor 2: Risk Analysis Plan? | See question 26. | ||
| 28 | Globalcap RFP | 62 | F.3 | The RFP requires the submittal of the various contract data deliverables at the IDIQ level and at the Task Order Level. Will our employees assigned to the IDIQ or at the Task Order Level be allowed to prepare these deliverable reports or submit the information required for the home office to prepare these reports and such hours worked be included in the hours to be billed to the Government? | The contractor may determine internally who prepares the contract data deliverables. The contractor shall allocate such preparation costs in accordance with its established or disclosed cost accounting practices. | ||
| 29 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 62 | F.3 | Under the Contract Data Deliverables Schedule (Task Order Level) the "Frequency" and "Addresses" rows are blank for "Project Schedule." Will the USG please update these cells? | These two cells have been updated in F.3. | ||
| 30 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 144-145 | I.2.2 | If this section applies to individual TOs, the sample TO, or the proposed equipment on the NTE list, and the FAR does not distinguish between an subcontractor and a vendor, how would the government handle a requirement for goods or services that are only available from one or two manufacturers or providers e.g. HESCOs? | This clause would only apply at the TO Level as applicable. If it is applicable at the TO level, further directions would be provided. | ||
| 31 | H.12 | Dear State - In regards to the recent update for the GLOBALCAP RFP we are a woman owned small business however we do not yet have our facility clearance. We have started the process of obtaining clearances for our staff but it is not complete yet either. Would you please let us know if we are eligible to respond to the GLOBALCAP RFP given the status of our company? | IDIQ will require Contractors to have the ability to hire/staff/retain employees to the SECRET level. | ||||
| 32 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 94 | H.12 Security Requirements | *Does the Government anticipate, at time of submission, for the offeror to show proof of TS Facility Clearance (FCL)? | No. The government has updated Section H.12 for clarity. | ||
| 33 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 94 | H.12 | The section first states that: "Specific individual clearance requirements for personnel will be specified at the task order level." It goes on to state that "The Government does not anticipate a facility clearance will be required for GLOBALCAP task orders since it is not anticipated Contractors will need to store, or access, classified materials at their own facility." To hold the clearances of personnel required to have clearances to work on a TO, the contractor (employer) is required to have a facility clearance. Therefore, does the government require contractors to possess a facility clearance when bidding on the IDIQ so that the contractors approved by the IDIQ process are fully qualified and prepared to quickly bid and begin performance on the TOs? | The government has updated Section H.12 for clarity. | ||
| 34 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 94 | H.12 Security Requirements | *What classification FCL will be required, as the SOW stated contractors will need access to classified information, the FCL will need to be at the same level as the contractors access. i.e. if any contractors need access to Top Secret materials, will we need to maintain our Top SECRET FCL. |
| Facility Clearances: The Government does not anticipate a facility clearance will be required for GLOBALCAP task orders since it is not anticipated Contractors will need to store, or access, classified materials at their own facility. However, at the task order level, in the event a facility clearance is required, the Government is willing to sponsor U.S. owned companies for their SECRET facility clearance to perform services for a specific task order. If required at the task order level, the successfully awarded contractor will be submitted by the Department of State for the required SECRET facility clearance. If the company is unable to be processed for the SECRET facility clearance the contract award offer will be rescinded and another qualified contractor selected. | See question 32. | |||||
| 35 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP | 94 | H.12 Security Requirements | The RFP states "Facility Clearances: |
The Government does not anticipate a facility clearance will be required for GLOBALCAP task orders since it is not anticipated Contractors will need to store, or access, classified materials at
| their own facility." However attachment J7 DD254 is a Facility Clearance form. Can the USG clarify if a facility clearance is required? | See question 32. | |||||
| 36 | Solicitation | 94 | H.12(a) Security Requirements | H.12(a) states that specific individual clearance requirements for personnel will be decided at the Task Order level. |
However, H.12(a) "Facility Clearances" further states, "The Government does not anticipate a facility clearance will be required for GLOBALCAP task orders since it is not anticipated Contractors will need to store, or access, classified materials at their own facility. However at the task order level, in the event a facility clearance is required, the Government is willing to sponsor U.S. owned companies for their SECRET facility clearance to perform services."
Awarding companies at the IDIQ level that do not possess current facility clearances at the SECRET level introduces performance risk by affecting the ability of the contractor to deploy and execute Task Order objective within the required timeline permitted.
| Will the Government reconsider including a SECRET facility clearance as qualifying award criteria? | See question 32. | |||||
| 37 | Solicitation | 94 | H.12(a) Security Requirements | The Government has included a DD Form 254 with the FCL indicating a SECRET FCL is required. This conflicts with the IDIQ language in Section H.12. |
| Can the Government confirm that a SECRET FCL is required at time of proposal submission? | See question 32. | ||||||
| 38 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP | 93 | H.11 | The USG is now going to allow what was NOT allowed last time under AFRICAP/ACOTA and Advisory Services, i.e., allowing a company that is providing monitoring and advising on GLOBALCAP Advisory taht would include input on task orders, etc., to also perform on the same contract and execute task orders on GLOBALCAP . The GLOBAL Advisory contractors would be in a position to shape future task orders that they would benefit from at the task order level. This was actually litigated previously and the USG was found to have made the correct decision to not allow contractors to participate in both monitoring of other contractors and also performing the task orders. Regardless of the offered "how they plan to overcome and remove any OCI risks for both the prime contractor and their subcontractors" we ask the government to require companies to make a decision on which contract they want to participate in and not be allowed to clearly setup obvious OCI issues. This is equivalent to being a team playing the ball game while also acting as an umpire. Currently the four Advisory Services are specifically forbidden to bid on any AFRICAP/ACOTA(GPOI) task orders as a subcontractor. This should not change. Will the USG revert to the current policy and not allow companies to participate in both contracts? | The Government has updated clause H.11 for clarity. | ||
| 39 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 81 | H.1.e | Whereas the RFP States Task orders shall be placed by electronic commerce, such as e-mail. Which Standard Form will the Government utilize to award Task Orders to Contractor? | We typically use SF-33 and SF-1442. But the Government reserves the right to use whatever forms they deem necessary. | ||
| 40 | H.5 Insurance Requirements SOW | Page 86 | H.5b Insurance | *Will the Government please clarify what is total amount for General Liability Insurance? |
Further, for each Task Order bodily injury liability insurance can be procured as per local country laws where task order to be performed or $5,000,000 is minimum mandatory amount per occurrence
*General Liability – The Contractor shall provide bodily injury liability insurance coverage written on the comprehensive form policy of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence. The offeror shall allocate Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance costs in accordance with its established or disclosed cost accounting practices.
If the offeror allocates such costs directly, such allocation shall be done at the task order level.
If the offeror allocates such costs indirectly, such costs, depending on the offeror's established or disclosed cost accounting practices, may be part of the NTE fully-loaded hourly labor rates and/or NTE equipment unit prices proposed at the IDIQ level. Please see RFP Sections L.24.4.2(21) and (26) [formerly L.23.4.2(21) and (26)]. If such costs are not in an indirect cost pool applicable at the IDIQ level, then such costs may be recovered at the task order level if the applicable indirect cost pool applies at the task order level. Also, if such costs are in an indirect cost pool applicable at the IDIQ level, then such costs may be recovered at the task order level if the applicable indirect cost pool applies again at the task order level if a double-counting of the same insurance costs does not occur.
| 41 | Solicitation | 12 | B.2, Item e. | Item e. states all contemplated task orders valued under $3 million will be 100% set aside for SDVOSB / WOSB concerns (unless a waiver is issued). Similarly, Item f. states that contemplated task orders valued above $3 million will be reviewed to determine the competitive pool to be utilized. | |||
| Will DOS utilize the anticipated value of the Base period (only) to make the determinations for all contemplated TOs issued under the IDIQ? Or, will the determination take into account the value of any option periods? | This will consider the life of the contract. | ||||||
| 42 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP | 140 | I.1 | FAR clause 52.244-2 Subcontracts is incorporated by reference. Can the USG confirm that additional subcontractors can be proposed at the task order level to fulfill the obligations of (c) and/or (d) of the clause once the task order is awarded? | Yes | ||
| 43 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP | 158 | I.9 | DFARs Clause 252.247-7022 Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea (Jun 2019) Clause is present, however, this RFP is subject to FAR and DOSAR. Will the USG please remove? | This clause has been removed. | ||
| 44 | RFP | 204 | M.11 | The evaluation criteria and the section L instructions for the Management volume have redundancies, such as requiring information on recruiting and retaining in multiple sections. Will the Government please clarify the Management instructions. | The Government has provided small updates to Section L for the Management Volume. No other changes beyond those updates. | ||
| 45 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0149 | 204 | M.11 | Please clarify/define the "total confidence methodology" as related to evaluation. | The lead in paragraph for M.11 has been updated. | ||
| 46 | 204 | M.11 | Please define what is meant by evaluating under the ‘total confidence methodology’ referenced here. | See question 45. | |||
| 47 | RFP | 204 | M.11 | The evaluation criteria and the section L instructions for the Management volume have redundancies, such as requiring information on recruiting and retaining in multiple sections. Will the Government please clarify the Management instructions. | The Management Volume was updated with minor update or clarifications. No other changes to the Management Volume. | ||
| 48 | 201 | M.4.a | Exceptions to Terms and Conditions are mentioned as an evaluation factor. Where in the proposal are Terms and Conditions to be addressed? | Paragraph M.4(b) has been updated to clarify that the Government will not allow offerors to propose exceptions to any RFP terms or conditions. | |||
| 49 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0148 | 201 | M.4.a | Evaluation factors: Exceptions to Terms & Conditions. Where is this factor to be addressed in the proposal? | M.4a is simply stating the offerors must disclose any exceptions or deviations from the terms and conditions and these exceptions may make the unawardable. Placing your list of Exceptions in Volume V would be acceptable. | ||
| 50 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 203 | M.9 | Table M2: Evaluation Factors appear to be missing an evaluation factor for Volume V (Factor 5) Business. | |||
| Recommend the Government add Volume V (Factor 5) to table M2 for consistency. | There is not a Factor 5. There is a Volume V for a responsibility determination which is different than a Factor. | ||||||
| 51 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0142 | n/a | n/a | Where in the proposal should Assumptions be addressed? Should they be included separately for each Volume as they pertain to that Volume or in one location for all assumptions? | Assumptions should be included separately for each volume as they pertain to that volume. | ||
| 52 | RFP | 202 | M.9 | RE: "Both phase 1 and phase 2 proposal volumes will be included in evaluation and award decision" |
We assume that the statement above on phases is an error as no other mention of a phased acquisition is elsewhere in the proposal. Please confirm or clarify.
| The Phase 1 and Phase 2 language has been removed. | |||||||
| 53 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 202 | M.9 | *Please clarify what is meant by ‘Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal volumes’ in this section. | See question 52. | ||
| 54 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 202 | M.9 | "Both phase 1 and phase 2 proposal volumes will be included in evaluation and award decision." Could the government provide further clarification regarding the definition of the two (2) distinct "phases"? [The word "phase" is used differently in other places in the RFP.] | See question 52. | ||
| 55 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 202 | M.9 | Under M.9, the first sentence states "Both phase 1 and phase 2 proposal volumes will be included in evaluation and award decision." | |||
| Clarification: Can the Government please clarify what phase 1 and phase 2 consists of? Should this be referred to as "Factors" vice "Phases"? | See question 52. | ||||||
| 56 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 202 | M.9 | Please clarify what is meant by ‘Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal volumes’ in this section. | See question 52. | ||
| 57 | RFP | 202 | M.9 | RE: "Both phase 1 and phase 2 proposal volumes will be included in evaluation and award decision" |
We assume that the statement above on phases is an error as no other mention of a phased acquisition is elsewhere in the proposal. Please confirm or clarify.
| See question 52. | |||||||
| 58 | Solicitation | 202 | M.9 | The Government states, "M.9 Evaluation Factors | |||
| Both phase 1 and phase 2 proposal volumes will be included in evaluation and award decision." Please clarify the volume requirements for each phase. | See question 52. | ||||||
| 59 | 202 | M-9 | Please clarify what is meant by ‘Phase 1 and Phase 2 proposal volumes’ in this section. | See question 52. | |||
| 60 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0144 | 202 | M-9 | Evaluation factors reference Phase 1 & 2 proposal volumes. Clarify what these “phases” refer to. | See question 52. | ||
| 61 | 200 | M.2.b | Representations and Certifications are mentioned as an evaluation factor. Where in the proposal are Representations and Certifications to be provided? | Paragraph K.1 was updated to state reps and certs shall be included in Volume V. | |||
| 62 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | *Please clarify the limitations on the number of business arrangements relevant to the proposal submission phase. |
| The current language only addresses awards and performance. | The Government has updated clause H.57 for clarity. | ||||||
| 63 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Please clarify the limitations on the number of business arrangements relevant to the proposal submission phase. The current language only addresses awards and performance. | See question 62. | ||
| 64 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Please clarify the limitations on the number of business arrangements relevant to the proposal submission phase. The current language only addresses awards and performance. | See question 62. | ||
| 65 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | *Is the U.S. Department of State considering to allow awardees in the SDVOSB / WOSB pool to participate in bidding directly on RTOPs released to the F&O pool? | Yes. | ||
| 66 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Will awardees in the SDVOSB / WOSB pool be allowed to participate in bidding directly on RTOPs released to the F&O pool? Could that allowance be considered if the SDVOSB / WOSB prime awardee was not also named on a team in the F&O pool? | The Government does not want RTOP is referring to. The SDVOSB / WOSB pool will be provided TOR's that are also sent to the F&O pool. | ||
| 67 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Question: Is the government considering to allow awardees in the SDVOSB / WOSB pool to participate in bidding directly on RTOPs released to the full and open pool? | See question 66. | ||
| 68 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Is the government considering to allow awardees in the SDVOSB / WOSB pool to participate in bidding directly on RTOPs released to the F&O pool? | See question 66. | ||
| 69 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 132-133 | H.57 | Is it correct that "This H-clause will apply throughout the life of the IDIQ contract" applies to all TOs issued under the IDIQ? | See question 62. | ||
| 70 | 132 | H,57 | This section specifies the cross-business relationships for Prime contractors- however, the way it is currently written it is focused on situations that are permitted AFTER award. Therefore, it’s impossible to determine who to select to team with at the proposal stage. Is there a way to rewrite this so that vendors can better determine what is permitted in terms of partnering? | See question 62. | |||
| 71 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | Clarification/Question: Does the government differentiate between a vendor and a subcontractor? i.e. if a vendor only sells equipment such as HESCO Barriers, is that company limited to how many primes they can support with a quote? A restriction for vendors could potentially limit competition amongst Prime offerors if particular vendors who manufacture unique/specific equipment are limited to participate on only one team. | See question 62. | ||
| 72 | RFP | 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | The RFP outlines Cross business relationship if Small business priming as having only 1 sub on the large team. Is that restriction at time of proposal or at time of award? | See question 62. | ||
| 73 | Solicitation | H.57 | Will DOS please answer the following questions about H.57: |
Are the terms in H.57 applicable both pre-award and post-award?
How does the Government define being a "sub-contractor in the other competition pool for only one vendor" in a pre-award environment?
Does the Government intend to review the teaming agreements made between offerors and subcontractors at the time of submission?
| Are changes post-award to be addressed in accordance with G.8 Changes to Teaming Arrangements/Joint Ventures? | See question 62. | ||||||
| 74 | RFP | page 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | Are participating subcontractors allowed to partner with a maximum of two awarded primes or only partner with a maximum of two prime bidders? | See question 62. | ||
| 75 | RFP | 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | doe the government differentiate between a vendor and a subcontract? i.e. if a vendor only sells equipment such as night vision goggles is that company limited to how many primes they can support with a quote? | See question 62. | ||
| 76 | RFP | 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | if a company has been awarded a prime in either the F&O or Small pool is that company allowed to be an equipment vendor for other companies in both pool or will this company be restricted? Must the company make the determination at time of award or time of proposal submission what teams to be on? | See question 62. | ||
| 77 | RFP | 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | Should companies name vendors in the solicitation or are vendors considered subcontractors? | See question 62. | ||
| 78 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 132 | H.57 Prime/Subcontractor Instructions and Limitations | Question/Clarification: If a company has been awarded a prime in either the Full and Open or Small pool, is that company allowed to be an equipment vendor for other companies in both pool or will this company be restricted? Must the company make the determination at time of award or time of proposal submission what teams to be on? | See question 62. | ||
| 79 | RFP | 132 | H.57 | The restrictions on limitation of subcontracting described in H.57 have the potential to create anti-competitive teams if certain critical subcontractors or those with a dominant market position are exclusive to only two teams. The Government already reserves the right to consent to subcontracting arrangements and can withhold consent of subcontracting for prime contractors if it wishes to ensure balanced teams. Therefore, will the Government consider removing the subcontracting limitation from the bidding process and allow the teams to naturally form?” | See question 62. | ||
| 80 | RFP | 132 | H.57 | The restrictions on limitation of subcontracting described in H.57 limit competition and place undue burden on small business subcontractors with limits on large business subcontracting. Will the Government consider removing the subcontracting limitation of primes being on one small business team. | See question 62. | ||
| 81 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | *Is the U.S. Department of State considering to allow Small Business concerns to participate on more than two teams per pool while maintaining the same restriction on Large Business team members. This would allow greater participation from Small Business concerns across teams. | See question 62. | ||
| 82 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0143 | 132 | H.57 | As currently written, the cross-business relationship content for Prime contractors is post-award orientated. Additional clarity is needed for vendors to understand partnering terms during the proposal stage. Is it possible to rewrite this section to better clarify partnering terms during the proposal stage? | See question 62. | ||
| 83 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 132-133 | H.57 | This section about limits on business relationships specifically refers to "awarded" contracts. Until a contract is awarded, no contractor or subcontractor can know if it is in the position to potentially exceed the cited limits. Are contractors prohibited from being part of proposals that potentially might exceed the Prime/Subcontractor Limitations of this section? | See question 62. | ||
| 84 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 132-133 | H.57 | If subcontractors are not prohibited from being part of multiple proposals that may result in potentially exceeding the limitations of this section for "awarded" contracts, how will the government address the conflict when a contractor ends up exceeding the limitations due to participation on teams/joint ventures? | See question 62. | ||
| 85 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 132-133 | H.57 | Does this section apply to second or higher level subcontractors of a prime? | See question 62. | ||
| 86 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Question: Is the government considering to allow Small Business concerns to participate on more than two teams per pool? This would allow greater participation from Small Business concerns across teams. | See question 62. | ||
| 87 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Is the government considering to allow Small Business concerns to participate on more than two teams per pool while maintaining the same restriction on Large Business team members. This would allow greater participation from Small Business concerns across teams. | See question 62. | ||
| 88 | GLOBALCAP: Solicitation Number, Solicitation Number, 19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Is the government considering differentiating between subcontractors and Joint Ventures for the purpose of lifting the restriction on number of allowed subcontractor/team business arrangements. | See question 62. | ||
| 89 | RFP | 132 | H.57 | “The restrictions on limitation of subcontracting described in H.57 have the potential to create anti-competitive teams if certain critical subcontractors or those with a dominant market position are exclusive to only two teams. The Government already reserves the right to consent to subcontracting arrangements and can withhold consent of subcontracting for prime contractors if it wishes to ensure balanced teams. Therefore, will the Government consider removing the subcontracting limitation, except for a large business being both a prime contractor and subcontractor, from the bidding process and allow the teams to naturally form?” | See question 62. | ||
| 90 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Will the government consider allowing Small Business concerns to participate on more than two teams per pool while maintaining the same restriction on Large Business team members. This would allow greater participation from Small Business concerns across teams. | See question 62. | ||
| 91 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Will the government consider allowing Small Business concerns to participate on more than two teams per pool while maintaining the same restriction on Large Business team members. This would allow greater participation from Small Business concerns across teams. | See question 62. | ||
| 92 | GLOBALCAPSolicitation Number19AQMM23R0142 | 132 and 133 | H.57 | Will the Government consider differentiating between subcontractors and Joint Ventures for the purpose of lifting the restriction on number of allowed subcontractor/team business arrangements. | The Government will follow SBA guidelines and regulations regarding joints ventures. | ||
| 93 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 71 - 75 | G.3.g.6; G.3.g.7 | Given the extensive volume of support requested for costs under arrangements when payment is made based on actual costs/hours incurred, considering the daily per diem, R&R flights, uplifts, operating costs of PMO facilities, etc., will the Government please allow the contractor to make these supporting documents available upon request rather than required with each invoice submission? | No. Invoice submission must adhere to clause requirements. | ||
| 94 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 72 - 76 | G.3.g.6; G.3.g.7 | Given the extensive volume of support requested for costs under arrangements when payment is made based on actual costs/hours incurred, considering daily per diem, R&R flights, uplifts, operating costs of PMO facilities, etc., will the Government please set a micro purchase threshold of $10K for this support? | No. Invoice submission must adhere to clause requirements. | ||
| 95 | RFP | 185 | L.23.3 | Would the government please confirm that we are allowed to provide three prime past performances and two projects for each significant subcontractor on our team? E.g., five projects total submitted if we have one significant subcontractor, seven projects total submitted if we have two significant subcontractors, etc. | This is how the language reads. The Government cannot expand the definition any further. | ||
| 96 | RFP | 185 | L.23.3 | Is past performance for significant subcontractors mandatory even if we are able to provide the three prime project descriptions? | No | ||
| 97 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 185 | L.23.3 | "To be considered recent, performance shall be within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation: Given that COVID prevented a lot of contractors from performing in many OCONUS locations in at least two of the last three years, would the government please consider extending the past performance eligibility to performance within the past five (5) years? | The Government appreciates the question and the effects of COVID. We have revised the number to past four (4) years instead of three (3) years. | ||
| 98 | 19AQMM23R0142 RFP | 185 | L23.3-7 | Due to the drastic interruptions of contracts during the 2+ years of global pandemic, many highly relevant prior contracts may be eliminated from the RFP stipulated three years for recency timeframe. Please consider changing the three year timeframe to reflect a five year timeframe for recency. | The government has updated the number of years. See recency assessment paragraph. | ||
| 99 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 79 | H.1.b | If the TOR requires “mandatory proposals for a particular site”, does that apply to all contractors or could that mandatory proposal requirement be directed at a single contractor? | This means the Government reserves the right to mandate proposals to ensure competition. This is highly unlikely as competition is nearly always present. | ||
| 100 | Solicitation | 100-101 | H.25 Review of Documents and Local Conditions | Section H.25.1.2. states the Offeror is responsible for “Visiting the project site and verifying all pertinent site conditions, including the past, current, and future security conditions that might have an impact upon the contractor’s performance of the contract.” |
| Please clarify the applicability and the support to be provided by DOS to enable Offerors to meet the requirements of H.25.1.2. | At the Task Order Level, the government may (if required) provide specific site visit instructions. For example, for the Construction projects, the government makes a concerned effort to sponsor site visits. | ||||||
| 101 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 96 | H.15 | "The following locations applicable to this contract have a high safety risk and require HTSOS-C training: (CO must list posts/countries). List of posts/countries:" Will the USG provide the list of posts/countries that require the training? | Added sentence stating that if this clause applies for a certain task order country it will be stated at TO level. | ||
| 102 | RFP | 161 | K.4 FAR PROVISION 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications – (Mar 2023) | K.4 states that the small business size standard is $38.5M for NAICS 561210, Facilities Support Services. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards in 1 January 2022 shows a size standard of $47M for this NAICS. We request that the Government confirm the size standard and revise K.4 to reflect the current size standard. | $47M is correct. This has been updated. | ||
| 103 | H.5 Insurance Requirements SOW | Page 86 | H.5a Insurance | *Employer's liability coverage of at least $5,000,000 is required | |||
| *Will the Government please clarify that cost of this insurance will be part of Task Order at later stage to to be included now in Price Schedule? | The offeror shall allocate Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance costs in accordance with its established or disclosed cost accounting practices. |
If the offeror allocates such costs directly, such allocation shall be done at the task order level.
If the offeror allocates such costs indirectly, such costs, depending on the offeror's established or disclosed cost accounting practices, may be part of the NTE fully-loaded hourly labor rates and/or NTE equipment unit prices proposed at the IDIQ level. Please see RFP Sections L.24.4.2(21) and (26) [formerly L.23.4.2(21) and (26)]. If such costs are not in an indirect cost pool applicable at the IDIQ level, then such costs may be recovered at the task order level if the applicable indirect cost pool applies at the task order level. Also, if such costs are in an indirect cost pool applicable at the IDIQ level, then such costs may be recovered at the task order level if the applicable indirect cost pool applies again at the task order level if a double-counting of the same insurance costs does not occur.
104 Solicitation 161 K.4(a) Items 1 and 2 Section K.4 states the NAICS code for the acquisition is 561210, Facilities Support Services and the small business size standard is $38.5 Million.
| Please confirm the applicable small business size standard for the partial Small Business Set Aside (SDVOSB/WOSB) competitive pool is provided in K.4. | This is the correct NAICS. | |||||
| 105 | RFP | 183 | L.23.2 Subfactor 4 | Question 1: Please confirm that the Government is requiring offerors to submit their TCP, with salary information, in the management volume, as opposed to the Pricing or Business volume. Typically pricing related information, such as employee salaries, is limited to the Pricing volume. |
Question 2: If the TCP is to be provided in the Management Volume, will the Government consider excluding this plan from the Management Volume page count, as comprehensive TCPs can be lengthy. Response to Question 1: Correct. The Management Volume is the appropriate volume for offerors to submit, and from which the Government will evaluate, the total compensation plan. Government technical personnel are required to ensure that the evaluation objectives identified in FAR 52.222-46(a) through (c), and the evaluation criteria identified in Sub-Factor 4 in RFP Section M.11, are met.
Response to Question 2: The Government did increase the overall page limit to provide increased flexibility.
106 RFP 181 L.23.2 The first paragraph of Sub-Factor 1 asks us to demonstrate how we "possess adequate financial resources to operate as a corporate entity" and "demonstrates the ability to follow corporate enterprise and workforce development objectives."
1) What evidence can we provide as proof that we meet or exceed the "adequate financial resources" requirement?
2) As this appears to be a financial requirement, will the government move this requirement to Volume 5 - Business?
3) What does the government define as "corporate enterprise and workforce development objectives"?
| 4) As this appears to be a business systems requirement, will the government move this requirement to Volume 5 - Business? | 1) This is up the offeror on how they want to present this information. 2) This will not be moved to Volume V. 3) This is up to the offeror to determine how to propose. 4) This will not be moved to Volume V. | ||||||
| 107 | RFP | 205 | M.11 | Subfactor 1 Key personnel/Staffing/Personnel Plan and Subfactor 2 Resource Management Plan both include recruiting, hiring, and retaining staff. Will the Government please clarify where it wants Offeror's recruiting and retention approach? | Within Subfactor 2. | ||
| 108 | RFP | 182 | L.23.2 | RE: "The Offeror shall provide resumes for individual (s) identified as key personnel for this solicitation; |
these resumes are limited to three (3) pages which are not included in the overall 30-page count limitation."
| Will the Government please clarify if the Management Volume has a 30-page count limitation? | The reference to 30-page count has been removed. | |||||
| 109 | RFP | 182 | L.23.2 | RE: "The Offeror shall provide resumes for individual (s) identified as key personnel for this solicitation; |
these resumes are limited to three (3) pages which are not included in the overall 30-page count limitation."
| Will the Government please clarify if the Management Volume has a 30-page count limitation? | See question 108. | ||||||
| 110 | 182 | L.23.3 | This section states: The Offeror shall provide resumes for individual (s) identified as key personnel for this solicitation; these resumes are limited to three (3) pages which are not included in the overall 30-page count limitation. Resumes must demonstrate that the individual meets all position requirements for the labor position identified in the attached SOW. Key personnel include the following positions:(a) Program Manager In regard to the resumes, is the 3-page limit referenced above for EACH resume? Also, what is the document being referred to as the “attached SOW”? | See question 108. | |||
| 111 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP.pdf | 176 and 182 | L.22 | Paragraph 2 states "there is a 200-page limit (total pages) on all documents submitted as part of Offeror's proposals." However, under L.23.2 Volume II - Management, page 182 paragraph 3 it states "The Offeror shall provide resumes for individual (s) identified as key personnel for this solicitation; these resumes are limited to three (3) pages which are not included in the overall 30-page count limitation." |
Question 1: Is Volume II - Management limited to 30 pages?
| Question 2: Are Resumes limited to 3 pages? | All required items in the Volume will be included in the page count. Additionally, the Government has increased the page limit to 225 which will include Volume I, Volume II and Volume III. | ||||||
| 112 | RFP | 182 | L.23.2 Management | "The Offeror shall provide resumes for individual (s) identified as key personnel for this solicitation; these resumes are limited to three (3) pages which are not included in the overall 30-page count limitation." This 30 page limit conflicts with the 200 page limit in RFP L.22. Please revise to "200-page count limitation." | See question 111. | ||
| 113 | RFP | 204 | M.11 | The evaluation criteria for Management Sub-Factor 1 Key Personnel and Staffing seems to have past performance evaluation criteria. Will the Government please correct to clarify the evaluation criteria. | Sub-Factor 1 is a Key Personnel Experience factor. Past Performance is separate. | ||
| 114 | RFP | 33 | B.16 Advance Understanding (para. u.) - | For FFP task orders with progress payments based on costs, the task order price is fixed but the amount of individual progress payments will depend, in part, on the indirect cost rates used for progress payment billing (see Section B.5). The Government may consider progress payments at the task order level; there is no guarantee of progress payments being allowed. |
| Will the government please clarify the conditions which will allow for the billing of progress payments at the task order level? | The Government may authorize progress payments at the task order level. This will only be allowed on a case by case basis. The Government will not state the conditions for which it will be allowed at this time. However, a reason that it might be allowed is in the event of an expensive or bulk equipment purchase. Again, this is not a guarantee and will be determined at TO level. | ||||||
| 115 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 71, 72, 138 | Table I1: FAR 52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998); G.3.g.4 | Section I incorporates FAR 52.232-16 Progress Payments. Can the Government please confirm that it will allow for billing of progress payments associated with verifiable production milestones on task orders where Offerors will be procuring armored personnel carriers (APCs) or other heavy equipment with long lead items? | See question 114. | ||
| 116 | RFP 19QMM23R0142 | 144-145 | I.2.2 | Does this section apply to the sample TO, or the proposal of equipment on the NTE list? | This clause would only apply at the TO Level as applicable. If it is applicable at the TO level, further directions would be provided. | ||
| 117 | 19AQMM23R0142+GLOBALCAP+RFP | 11 | B.1 | Will the USG confirm that GLOBALCAP succeeds the current Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) IDIQ contract as well as the AFRICAP III IDIQ contract? | Yes | ||
| 118 | Solicitation | 87 | H.5 Insurance Requirements | Section H.5, item h states, "The Contractor shall obtain adequate insurance for damage to, or theft of, materials and equipment in insurance coverage for loose transit to the site or in storage on or off the site." |
| Will the Government allow for self-insurance for CFE items? | The Government does not understand this question. The requirement states "adequate insurance." | ||||||
| 119 | RFP | 90 | H.8.3 | What does the Government considered "military clothing" since clothing brands make tactical clothing in olive drab, khaki and other colors that may appear similar to host nation uniforms? This is especially important in conflict zones where contractors might require body armor and/or serve as medics evacuating wounded personnel from from tline positions. | Contractor employees cannot represent themselves as military employees or otherwise as direct Government hires. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure there is no confusion between contract staff and military staff (including partner nation military staff). Olive and khaki color clothing is allowed as long as its clearly not military personnel. | ||
| 120 | 47 | C.2.3 | The first sentence reads “The Contractor shall in the procurement of equipment.” What is the word missing after ‘shall’? | The government has updated this sentence. | |||
| 121 | 19AQMM23R0142 GLOBALCAP RFP | 54 | D.5 | For items procured and delivered to the Government or its designee what is the Government's process to provide Contractor with all needed information in order to be able to facilitate Warranty claims ? | The Government will adhere to the processes of the warranty clauses. |
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 .