RFP_TACCOM_II_QUESTIONS_ANSWERS_A0005.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 170 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TACCOM II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 2017036109
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for the Tactical Communications II (TacCom II) re-compete requirement. The solicitation seeks solutions for land mobile radio equipment, infrastructure, satellite communications equipment and services, as well as technical and management services. Key details include that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the issuing agency, proposals are due by January 5, 2023, and awards will provide communication solutions for federal law enforcement agencies. Offerors must meet minimum requirements for the number of labor categories and past performance references provided. Pricing must be submitted using templates and discounted against GSA Schedule rates or supported by sales data. International delivery locations receive reduced points in the evaluation.
RFP_TACCOM_II_QUESTIONS_ANSWERS_A0005
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
TACCOM II has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Section/Attachment | Paragraph | Page Number | Question | Change Made? Yes/No | Response Final |
| TC1 Equipment-ID #8 Radios & Accessories | 1 | Can the wideband antennas (undercover, hidden, magnetic, lip, gutter, roof, trunk mounts) be listed in an attachment showing the separate price for each style of antenna? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |
| TC1 Equipment-ID #8 Radios & Accessories | 1 | Do all the antennas listed in this category needs to use low smoke low halogen cables? The 175ft minimum for each control head is not detailed. | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |
| TC1 Equipment- ID#375 Infrastructure | 1 | Can the antenna be a discone assembly for VHF, UHF, 700MHz, 800MHz, and 900MHz frequencies? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |
| L.7.2.4 SELF-SCORING WORKSHEET, Section 1 | Item 3, Place of Performance | 167 | In the event that an offeror's task order provides multi-national service, such as to several nations and their agencies operating in a hemisphere, how shall the offeror score the Place of Performance? Will DHS revise the Self Scoring Sheet to add a Place of Performance selection titled "Multinationaly Provided Service/Delivery"? And, given that the present Self Scoring Worksheet grants the highest points for Nationally Provided Service/Delivery, will DHS revise the scoring method to grant the highest number of points for Multinationally Provided Service/Delivery since this demonstrates the offeror's ability to address the widest area of operations? | Yes | See changes to RFP Section L.7.2.4, Item 3. For international locations, select "Regionally provided service/delivery." |
| L.7.2.4 SELF-SCORING WORKSHEET, Section 1 | Item 7, Relevant Experience - Fair Opportunity Delivery/Task Order Award Against a MA/IDIQ Contract | 167 | As presently defined, the Self-Scoring Worksheet enables an offeror to gain two additional points if the referenced project was awarded in competition (under Fair Opportunity) conducted under a MA/IDIQ vehicle. Why does the government consider projects won in competition under an MA/IDIQ as more representative of an offeror's capability than projects won in full-and-open competition? Full-and-Open competition and Fair Opportunity competition each invite responsible parties to compete, and a win under either approach indicates the offeror is a repetitive and competitive provider. We suggest that DHS modify the definition of Item 7 to read, the offeror will "certify whether the project is an Order (or Orders) awarded against a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MA/IDIQ) contract that provided for fair opportunity (competed) under FAR part 16.505, or was awarded after Full-and-Open competition per FAR 2.101." | No | The RFP is unchanged. DHS values contractors administering Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contracts, contractors actively competing on orders among other qualified IDIQ awardees, and successfully fulfilling competitive orders. |
| Section L: Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors and Respondents | L.7.1.2: "The offeror shall provide an executed SF 1449 and SF30 for each amendment to this solicitation." | Page 153 | The Government requires a signed SF30 for each amendment, but has only provided attachments for Amendments 0001-0003. Can the Government provide SF30 attachments for Amendments 0004-0005? Additionally, can the Government please clarify that only one SF 1449 is required for the entire proposal, rather than separate SF 1449 forms for each amendment? | No | See response provided on line 105 of the original Question and Answer Document. Communications expressed on FBO, not associated with an amendment to the RFP, do not require an SF30 submission. |
| Section L: Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors and Respondents | L.6.1: "Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable." | Page 146 | The RFP requires a minimum 12-point font size for proposal narrative. Is there a minimum font size for graphic representations, including tables? | Yes | See RFP Section L.6.1 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL |
| TACCOM_II_SUBCATEGORY_EQUIPMENT_PRICING_TEMPLATE.xlsx | 1 | What are the CIR and MIR that Contractors should use in pricing Items 2 and 3 on the Sat Service tab? | No | The Offeror should provide its proposed CIR and MIR. | |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003.docx | L.6.2 | 150 | Uner the Titla Column for Item 2-Relevant Experience with Past Performance |
Supporting Documents; the Government asks that we submit -- 1. Reference Project Fully Executed Award Document (Original and Modifications). We have 100's of modificaions to one of our relevant experience projects. Does the Government want us to attached copies of every modification to the contract? Every task order for work was a contract modification.
| Yes | Per RFP Section L.7.2.3, Item 1: For projects in which the Schedule of Supplies/Services, work requirements, obligated value, service/delivery locations, or any other element subject to validation, have been changed through a modification, the corresponding SF30, or equivalent, shall be submitted in this volume. Also see clarification at Section L.7.2.3, Item 2. | ||||
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003.docx | |||||
| TACCOM_II_SUBCATEGORY_EQUIPMENT_PRICING_TEMPLATE.xlsx | L.7.3.1 | 170 | May a company only quote Sat Services, which would require two items quoted in the SAT Service tab of the pricing template or must a Contractor who chooses the Satellite Subcategory also price three items on the SAT tab that is for satellite hardware? | No | Satellite Services is not an independent Subcategory. Minimum pricing requirements must be met for Satellite hardware. Additional points may be earned by proposing Satellite Services solutions. |
| Relevant Experience Form & RFP_A003 | Part II & L.7.2.2, Part III | 3-4 & 160 | FPDS data does not exist for certain Federal Procurement Activities if they do not submit this data. The current solicitation language only allows for missing FPDS data if the contract is with a State or Local contracting activity. The CO Concurrence options on Part III of the Relevant Experience Form (page 4) for missing FPDS data currently has two options: either Final FPDS does not exist because the contract is with a State or Local government entity. |
OR
Uncorrected inconsistencies exist between the information submitted by the contractor and the information submitted to FPDS by the CO.
| Neither of these scenarios fit the problem of a Federal Agency not submitting FPDS data. We request that a third CO concurrance option be added for missing FPDS data due to lack of submission by a Federal contracting activity on Part III of the relevant experience form. | No | If FPDS data does not exist because an agency did not submit this data, request the entry be completed by the Contracting Officer. | ||||
| Relevent ExperienceProject Attachments, Past Performance Rating Form | L.7.2.3 | Page 161 | There were slight changes made to the Past Perfomance Rating Form in the updated solicitation. We already got the contracting officer to execute the previous version of the form for one of our past performances. Is the previous form that was already executed acceptable to use or do we have to try to get the contracting officer to execute the newer version in the short time left to complete the proposal? | Yes | See RFP Section L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS #4 | |
| ID 131 | Shall be compatible with existing DHS systems, for example Motorola SMARTZONE Trunking system | Smartzone is a legacy Motorola Trunked Radio Protocol. We are unaware of any third party licensing of SmartZone protocol. If the existing SmartZone System offers two or four Wire analog gateway capability, is this sufficient to comply? | ||||
| No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |||||
| ID 132 | Shall be compatible with existing DHS systems, for example Motorola Vote Scan system (*D) | If a vendor supports Vote Scan via a Digital Ping feature. Does this constitute compliance? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 133 | Shall be capable of supporting a minimum of 48 separate keys as well as multiple keys formats to include DES-XL | DES-XL is not a P25 Standard Encryption Protocol. Will P25 Standard AES suffice for compliance? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 135 | Shall be capable of Programming over the Air Project 25 | OTAP is a vendor-system-terminal specific product. OTAP messages are send through P25 radio infrastructure as P25 Data Packets. Is it sufficient to support P25 Data? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 915 | Modes: FM/AM/P25/Trunking/AES/DES Encryption, OTAR | AM is not a LMR Modulation Scheme. Can AM be optional? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 387, ID 405, and ID 460 | APCO P25-compliant, for phase I and II | Is it acceptable that where phase I or phase II trucking is required, that the vendor adheres to APCO P25 standards? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 403 | Trunked Repeaters must support Intellirepeater configuration and operation. | The Interllirepeater functionality is Motorola DMR Proprietary and to our knowledge not available for licensing by other vendors. Can this be dropped as a requirement? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 423 | Stand Alone Comparator must have minimum of 16 Ports, at least 2 of which are configurable as DIU interface. | The term DIU is a Motorola acronym. Can a vendor support the same functionality with their own IP Digital Voter Interface and Protocol? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 448 | 3. CENTRACOM Signaling Link Support' | CENTRACOM Signaling is a proprietary Motorola Console protocol. Can a vendor provide a DFSI Console Interface? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | ||
| ID 457,458, 459 | DIU Crypto Module |
DIU Card Cage DIU configuration Service Software
| DIU is a Motorola acronym. Can a vendor provide their own Voted and Encrypted Digital IP Interface? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |||
| ID 591 | 3. CENTRACOM Signaling Link Support' | CENTRACOM Signaling is a proprietary Motorola Console protocol; can the vendor provide their own DFSI Console Interface? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |
| ID 871 | Ability to multiple codeplug installed within the radio | Codeplug is a Motorola acronym for a Radio Personality file. Can with the vendor provide their our own ability to program different Radio Personalities into our Radio Equipment? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |
| ID 694, 695 | Each radio shall have the APCO-P25 (P25) Waveform option or equivalent software installed. |
Radios shall be enabled with APCO P25 Over-the-Air-Rekey (OTAR) capable of automatically updating encryption keys via the Rescue-21 shore-side system or other USCG/DHS shore-side systems.
| This is listed under the Satellite section. Are you stating that you need P25 to be transported over satellite? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |||
| ID 811 | Supports operation in 12.5 kHz, 25kHz, and 20 kHz channel spacing in 800 MHz | We understand that 20 KHz is not Channel Spacing but FCC Authorized Bandwidth, is this a mistake? | No | The Common Requirements List is an example of solutions currently in use; it is not exclusive. Specific requirements and solution compatibility will be assessed at the order level. | |
| L.6.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE | 1 | 147 - 148 | To simplify the proposal submission--and reduce the burden on the evaluators--would the Government consider consolidating the multiple Volume I: General separate files into one document? This would benefit bidders and the Government alike by reducing the total number of files to keep track of. | No | No change; the separation is intentional. |
| TacCom II LCAT MAP Template | Can the Government please explain the significance of the (salmon-ish) highlighted labor categories in Column A of the LCAT Map Template? | Yes | Highlighted labor categories are no longer highlighted. | ||
| TacCom II RFP A0003 | L.7.2.3 Para #3 | In some cases, the "final" FPDS may not be updated to reflect all modifications to a relevant experience contract. The latest FPDS on record may correctly reflect the data in a proceeding modification. Please confirm that such instances do not in themselves reflect an "inconsistency" that would require CO or COR signature on the Relevant Experience form. | No | The relevant experience project attachments must substantiate the data submitted in the associated Relevant Experience Form. Where the attachments do not substantiate the Relevant Experience Form data, seek CO verification. | |
| Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template for Radios and Accessories | Price Reasonableness Information | With this revised exhibit, the government has requested sales data (individual contract specific data) for those contractors not having GSA catalogs. It appears that this information needs to be provided for all the Items being proposed (up to 14) and that three separate references for each are preferred. This is a very specific new requirement that will take an tremendous amount of time to provide. This requirement could potentially require a vendor to submit 42 separate references(14 times 3). An extension of a minimum of 30 days is requested to provide this voluminous information. | No | In the absence of equipment prices that are discounted against an Offeror's GSA Schedule, Offerors must submit sales data that supports the unit prices proposed. An offeror may submit more than one reference if it believes it best provides support for unit prices proposed for TacCom II. The submission of more than one sales data reference for each item is not mandatory, nor are Offerors required to price all items. | |
| Past Performance Rating Form | This form has been revised slightly which will require vendors without PPIRS/CPARS data to have them filled out once again. Please allow vendors to use the previous version without penalty as this will save both vendors and the government valuable time and resources. | Yes | See RFP Section L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS #4 | ||
| Section L.7.2.4 Self-Scoring Worksheet, Section 1 Item 3 | The definition of Place of Performance has been changed from previous RFP versions with international locations now receiving no points. This new point structure will require vendors to re-evaluate their past performance candidates and potentially re-evaluate the subcategory they intend to bid against. An extension of a minimum of 30 days is required for vendors to properly assess this new information and re-evaluate their bid strategies. | Yes | See changes to RFP Section L.7.2.4, Item 3. For international locations, select "Regionally provided service/delivery." | ||
| Section L.7.2.4 Self-Scoring Worksheet, Section 1 Item 3 | The definition of Delivery Location has been changed from previous RFP versions. In this RFP version an enterprise wide hardware purchase for thousands of radios shipped to a central location for programming would receive less place of performance points than a buy of dozens of radios shipped to several locations. Please note that all DHS Federal Law Enforcement Agencies who purchased subscriber radios under TacCom had their radios shipped to central locations. Additionally, many wide area and nationwide system infrastructure solutions are shipped to a central location for eventual deployment to many individual communication sites. We request that the government consider changing the place of performance scoring to reflect the business practices of all the major customers this new contract will be supporting. If not changed this new point structure will require vendors to re-evaluate their past performance candidates and potentially re-evaluate the subcategory they intend to bid against. An extension of a minimum of 30 days is required for vendors to properly assess this new information and re-evaluate their bid strategies if it remains as currently stated. | No | How the Government distributes the equipment after receipt should not be considered. | ||
| General Extension Question | In order to provide vendors with the most up to date information it is requested that you publish any revised solicitation schedule immediately, even if that publication is in advance of answering the remaining questions. | No | Thank you for the feedback. | ||
| M.6 Scoring Methodology | “Validated points for each reference project shall be aggregated for a total score under the proposed subcategory. A maximum of 143 points may be earned for TC1 Equipment, 152 for TC2-Services (depending on subcategory selected to self-score against), and 192 for TC2 General.” | Page 186 | In the corresponding point equivalency table, the changes on page 186 are all labelled as “1.” For example: |
Are the items following Item 8 correlated with item 8 or are they stand alone criteria?
| Yes | See clarification in RFP Section M.6. | ||||
| Section L.7.2.2 | Part III | 160 | It is our Understanding that if work on a Relevant Experience project is performed for a Federal entity and FPDS data is available, then signature of the CO or COR is not required on the “Relevant Experience Form”. Please confirm. | Correct | |
| Past Performance Rating Form | 1 | Due to the short window of response (with most of COs unavailable Thanksgiving week) it might be difficult to get the responses back from COs. The only change to this form is the addition of field for “Period of Performance Being Evaluated”. This data is available in the “Relevant Experience Form”. Due to the tight timelines for this proposal, can the Offerors submit Past Performances in the original “Past Performance Rating Form” that were already completed and signed prior to the amendment? | Yes | See RFP Section L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS #4 | |
| Section L.7.3.1 | GSA Schedule or Commercial Catalog | 171 | Is the Offeror required to submit sales data for each and every product proposed? How are newly released items that do not have available sales data added to the catalog? | No |
Pricing to be submitted in response to this RFP is detailed in Section L.7.3. DHS will perform an analysis of prices submitted in the price templates; DHS will not perform a comprehensive analysis of offeror catalogs nor all items within the scope of the indefinite delivery vehicle.
| Section L.7.3.1 | GSA Schedule or Commercial Catalog | 172 | Section L.7.3.1 states, “Sales data from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary may be provided so long as there is a meaningful relationship to the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters are submitted with the proposal.” Under this definition, Offerors will not be able to offer a broader range or new and innovative products manufactured by multiple manufacturers. In order for the DHS to enjoy the widest selection of equipment in the catalog, it is recommended that Distributors, Channel Partners and Manufacturer’s Representatives be added to this definition. | No | Items proposed on the Subcategory Pricing Template do not restrict delivery of other items at the order level. The requirement for offeror sales data does not restrict the sourcing of future requirements through Distributors, Channel Partners and Manufacturer’s Representatives . |
| Section L.7.2.4 | Section 1 | 168 | Section L.7.2.4 states, “At least 50% of the rated criteria in CPARS/PIPRS or the Past Performance Rating Form must be “Satisfactory” or higher to receive credit for each project.” Given that some projects (such as Firm Fixed Price) will not have the Cost Control section as applicable, is the N/A rating excluded from the 50% requirement or considered as below satisfactory? | No | “At least 50% of the rated criteria in CPARS/PIPRS or the Past Performance Rating Form must be “Satisfactory.” N/A is not considered a rated criteria. |
| Section L.1 | Small Business Participation | 139 | Is it the Government's intention to award to the 13 highest scoring small businesses regarless of sub-category proposed or will the 13 awards be comprised of the highest scoring responses in each sub-category, totalling to 13? | No | Awards will be comprised of the highest scoring responses in each sub-category, totaling to 13. Per RFP, M.3.1 OFFEROR RANKING, |
The first step in the evaluation process will be to order the Offers from highest score to lowest score in each subcategory solely using the Offeror’s TACCOM II SELF SCORING WORKSHEET.
| TACCOM II_RELEVANT_EXPERIENCE_FORM | Part I, Question 3 | 1 | If the award documents were signed on a different date than the "Date Signed " that is indicated in the Final FPDS-NG record, which date should offeror use? | Use FPDS. See clarification in Section L.7.2.2. | |
| TACCOM II_RELEVANT_EXPERIENCE_FORM | Part I, Question 3 | 1 | If there are differences in the date an award was signed by the CO, Offeror and the FPDS-NG record, please confirm Offeror should complete Part III Offeror Request for CO Concurrence to distinguish or confirm correct date. | Use FPDS. See clarification in Section L.7.2.2. | |
| TACCOM II_RELEVANT_EXPERIENCE_FORM | Part I, Question 10 | 2 | If the Place of Performance in the award documents reflects the geographical location of Offeror's personnel but the awarded scope of work includes the provision of technical support services to all eight regions based on the CBP sector map, please confirm Offeror should complete Part III Offeror Request for CO Concurrence to confirm awarded scope includes a nationally provided service. | CO concurrence is not required when the Relevant Experience Project award or requirements documents accurately reflect the Place(s) of Performance. See clarification in Section L.7.2.2. | |
| L.6.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE, 7.3.2 | CompanyName.VOL3.TC2SERVICES - PRICED.xls and CompanyName.VOL3.TC1 SERVICES – UNPRICED.xls | 151 | For Volume 3-Price, Services Price Proposal (TC2 Only) please confirm that the Example File Name for the unpriced Volume should reflect TC2 and not TC1. | Yes | The RFP is updated; an unpriced TC2 Services Price proposal is not required. Rather, submit the LCAT Map. |
| L.6.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE, 7.3.2 | CompanyName.VOL3.TC2SERVICES - PRICED.xls and CompanyName.VOL3.TC1 SERVICES – UNPRICED.xls | 151 | For Volume 3-Price, Services Price Proposal (TC2 Only) please confirm that the Unpriced file should only include Columns A & B of the TACCOM_II_SERVICES_PRICING_WORKSHEET as the remaining data, including the highlighted columns in yellow, contain data that is directly relevant to the proposed prices. | Yes | The RFP is updated; an unpriced TC2 Services Price proposal is not required. Rather, submit the LCAT Map. |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003 | Section K | 138 | RFP states "Offerors are required to be responsive to the provisions in Section I, Part 5, as applicable." Please confirm Offeror should still complete HSAR 3052.209-70 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES (JUNE 2006) and submit as a part of Volume I. | Yes | Offerors should still complete HSAR 3052.209-70 PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES (JUNE 2006) and submit as a part of Volume I. Reference to the provision to be incorporated in all contracts is added to Section I, Part 5. |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003 | Section K | 138 | RFP states "Offerors are required to be responsive to the provisions in Section I, Part 5, as applicable." If Offeror's SAM Registration is current, please confirm they are still required to submit the full text of all Representations & Certifications in Part 5 including, 52.222-48, HSAR 3052.209-72). | No | Per, FAR 52.212-3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 2017) (DEVIATION 2017-01), The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) Web site located at https://www.sam.gov/portal. If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (u) of this provision. |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003 | L.7.2.2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT QUALIFICATIONS/Part III | 160 | Please confirm that an email from the COR to the Offeror with a copy to the cognizant CO is sufficient as long as the completed TacCom II Relevant Project Form is attached to the email. | No | This is acceptable. |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003 | L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS/Part 4 | 165 | If Offeror has already sent and received back a signed Past Experience Rating Form from a COR, they should re-submit a new form to the COR reflecting the changes to Section C of TacCom II_Past_ Performance_Rating_Form | Yes | See RFP Section L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS #4 |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003 | L.7.3.2 TECHNICAL CATEGORY 2 (SERVICES) INSTRUCTIONS | 174 | Similar to L.7.3.1, is offeror permitted to use an "other government catalog " to complete Column G? | No | It is not up to the Government what ceiling rates an Offeror proposes in Column G of the TacCom Services Pricing Template. |
| M.6 Scoring Methodology | 1. Indicate the number of labor categories where data was provided on the TACCOM II LCAT MAP TEMPLATE. 45 or more 2 |
1. Indicate the number of labor categories where data was provided on the TACCOM II LCAT MAP TEMPLATE. 75 or more 5
1. Indicate the number of labor categories where data was provided on the TACCOM II LCAT MAP TEMPLATE. 99 or more 10
| 186 | The new scoring methodology states that we are scored based on the number of labor categories proposed as shown in the scoring table on M.6. Because this RFP revision requires us to bid on only 1 subcategory of TC 2, do we still bid the entire labor cateogry table to ensure we recieve our maximm possible points? Or is there a clearly defined list of labor categories that are applicable per each subcategory of TC2? The common Requirements list does not confirm which labor categories will be used for specific sub categories. | Yes | See clarification in RFP Section L.7.2.4, Section 3. | ||
| Small Business Subcontracting Plan | 2. Goals Letters A-G | 2,3 | Each year has two columns to fill in, two year columns and two% columns. Is this intentional, or an error. We cannot find any instruction as to why each year must have two columns of FY__ and two columns of %__ | No | Two columns are providing for periods of performance of contracts that cross fiscal years. |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003.docx | L.5.5 Proposal Due Date and Address Location | 144 | Will the Government consider granting a two-week extension to Offerors in order to review all changes and Q&A made and provide the best offers? | Yes | See L.5.5 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND ADDRESS LOCATION |
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003.docx | L.7.3.1 Technical Category 1 (Equipment) Instructions | 170 | We are defining satellite services to mean the activities required to set up, install, train, etc the government user on the SATCOM system. Please confirm our understanding is correct; or, if incorrect, how so. | No | Satellite services refer to the "data plans" offered by the satellite company. |
| TACCOM_II_SUBCATEGORY_EQUIPMENT_PRICING_TEMPLATE | Cell I1 | The Requirement states: "If Proposed Discounted Unit Ceiling Price is not based on GSA catalog, enter support for your proposed price " This requirement would give an unfair advantage since OEMs decide which companies to provide a GSA letter of supply. In order to provide a fair evaluation, will the government accept other government contracts/catalog pricing (i.e., SEWP and CIO-CS ) in lieu of this requirement to provide sales data? | No | No | |
| RFP L.7.3.1 | GSA Schedule or Commercial Catalog | 171 | In the referenced section it states: "Any GSA Schedule contract or catalog submitted must be that of the Offeror." Please confirm that the offeror is defined as the bidder and its proposed GSA CTA partners, and that it is allowable to submit the GSA Schedule of a CTA partner as evidence of price fairness/realism. | No | GSA CTA partner schedules do not serve as a substitute for TacCom II Offeror GSA Schedule proposal submissions. In the absence of equipment prices that are discounted against an Offeror's GSA Schedule, Offerors must submit sales data that supports the unit prices proposed. Per RFP Section L.7.3.1: The contractor name on contracts submitted as sales data must be that of the Offeror proposing under this solicitation, with the following exceptions: 1. Joint Ventures under the SBA’s All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (ASMPP) may submit sales data from both partners; supporting documentation must be provided certifying participation as a JV under the SBA ASMPP. 2. Sales data from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary may be provided so long as there is a meaningful relationship to the Offeror and Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters are submitted with the proposal. |
| RFP | All Sections | We are requesting at least a 2- to 3-week extension in order to accommodate the significant changes in the RFP and to obtain the required signatures from federal contracting officers who have scheduled leave during this holiday season. | Yes | See RFP Section L.5.5. | |
| Past Performance Rating Form (Amendment A0003 Revision) | In instances where offerors have already received completed Past Performance Ratings Forms from customer references (prior to Amendment A0003), please confirm these will be accepted with the final proposal submission. The Period of Performance is included in Section A and it is later than June 30, 2014, as required. This would allow offerors not to burden customer references again. | Yes | See RFP Section L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS #4 | ||
| Section L.7.3, GSA Schedule or Commercial Catalog | 171 | For pricing for both equipment and services, if a contractor does not have or prefers to use rates that have yet to be published as opposed to catalog or pre-existing commercial rates, and it provides justification such as ERI reports or other information that justifies them, is this acceptable to the Government? | No | No, the rate before discount must be from the Offeror's GSA Catalog, commercial catalog or other government catalog held by the Offeror. | |
| Section L.5.5 | 1 | 144 | Given that we are required to submit both signed Relevant Experience Forms and/or Past Performance Rating Forms (as applicable) with our proposal submission, we are concerned that this would place an unreasonable burden on the Government customer POCs to return these forms in such a short timeframe, especially during a time period when many customer POCs may be on vacation. We therefore recommend providing at least a week's extension to allow for sufficient time for the Contracting Officers to complete and sign these necessary forms. | Yes | See L.5.5 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND ADDRESS LOCATION |
| Questions / Answers in A0003 | Row 285 | The original Question was "The RFP provides for the evaluation of price for reasonableness only and on a pass/fail basis. |
The GSA has determined all GSA Schedule prices to be fair and reasonable. Please confirm that the agency does not intend to reevaluate GSA Schedule prices for reasonableness."
The Answer provided in A0003 is "Price analysis techniques as identified in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) will be used to make a fair and reasonable price determination. Section M.3.4 has been updated to state this."
While we understand, agree and accept the applicability of this FAR provision, we would ask that the Government directly answer the original question, since the effort and time required to show reasonabless of prices on GSA Schedules is quite high. From our (admittedly limited) perspective, it does not seem necessary to perform a de novo price reasonableness analysis on pricing already accepted by GSA as reasonable.
We ask for your understanding on this point, as the overall RFP response time is quite short. No Where an Offeror's TacCom II equipment ceiling prices are discounted against its GSA Schedule prices for the same item, no sales data nor narrative is required.
For services, no price narrative is required nor provided for in the RFP.
RFP M.4, Factor 3 180 Please clarify the language below regarding 38 labor categories. The first paragraph implies points will be awarded if fewer than 38 labor categories are priced. The third paragraph implies a minimum of 38 labor categories is required to be considered for award. "In the event Labor Categories proposed do not meet or exceed the government’s Labor Category description, but the proposal is considered Technically Acceptable by meeting the requirements for the minimum of 38 labor categories, the Offeror will only receive points in the Self Scoring Worksheet for those proposed Labor Categories that meet or exceed the government’s requirements In the event Labor Categories proposed do not meet or exceed the government’s Labor Category description, but the proposal is considered Technically Acceptable by meeting the requirements for the minimum of 38 labor categories, only those Labor Categories deemed technically acceptable will be incorporated into the resultant contract.
In the event an offer does not propose Labor Categories that meet or exceed the government’s Labor Category description for at least 38 Labor Categories, the solution will be deemed technically unacceptable (fail) and will not be considered for award."
| Yes | See clarification in RFP in Section M.4 Factor 3. | |||||
| RFP | M.6 | 186 | There appears to be a discrepancy between M.4 Factor 3 (38 labor categories or more) and the scoring methodology, which awards points beginning at 45 labor categories. Please clarify. | Yes | Points are awarded after a significant number of additional labor categories are filled out above the minimum required, beginning at 45 LCATs for points. See RFP Section M.4 Factor 3 | |
| RFP_TACCOM_II_QUESTIONS_ANSWERS_A0003 | "SAT" Tab | "SAT" tab | Items 1, 5, and 6 In the “SAT” tab of the pricing template specify AvL. Additionally, item 4 is unique to AvL. Offerer believes that the satellite communications capabilities solicited by the TACCOM II procurement do not exclusively require the use of AvL products, however the government has specified AvL products and not included equivalent commercial products. With Amendment 5, the government has revised the Self Scoring Sheet to give satellite equipment and service providers extra points for pricing a greater number of equipment items. Given that four of the equipment items require AvL products, we believe the government is unfairly reducing the competitiveness of providers who offer competing products. Therefore, we ask that the government modify the equipment list to include “or equivalent” related to AvL, or, that the government extend the RFP due date for 60 days in order for Contractors to modify their respective GSA Schedules to add AvL items. | Yes | See revised TACCOM II Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template. | |
| RFP_TACCOM_II_QUESTIONS_ANSWERS_A0003 | "SAT" Tab | "SAT" tab | Mobile VSAT systems are typically sold as complete systems that include the mobile antenna, power supply, BUC, LNB and modem. Therefore, the price for each component is not shown separately on the GSA schedule or a commercial price list. Component pricing will be provided to DHS as required in the pricing template, but each component will refer back to the same complete system in the GSA schedule. Please confirm that this is an acceptable approach. | No | Where a product proposed in the Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template does not have a one for one (exact) match on an Offeror's GSA Schedule, the Offeror must submit sales data. Use the price narrative submission, as appropriate. | |
| RFP_TACCOM_II_QUESTIONS_ANSWERS_A0003 | "SAT" Tab | "SAT" tab | Item 1 in the SAT service tab has the same 5GB allowance as items 2 and 3 but item 1 does not specify a speed. What speed is required for item 1? | No | See clarification in the TACCOM II Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template. | |
| L.7.3.1 | ||||||
| TACCOM_II_RFP_A0003.docx | 1st Paragraph | 170 | L.7.3.1 states that the “Offeror’s Price Data: 1. Offeror’s GSA Schedule OR 2. Offeror’s Commercial Catalog and Offeror’s Sales Data” shall be submitted when proposing under Technical Category 1. If the offeror does not have sales data, using their Commercial Catalog, the offeror must therefore rely solely on their GSA schedule. Will DHS accept pricing on items as “Pending GSA MOD approval”? If the answer to this question is no, then will DHS either a) extend the RFP due date for 60 days in order for Contractors to modify their respective GSA Schedules, or b) permit the Vendor to place these items on their respective GSA Schedule within 60 days after award? | No | No, and see L.5.5 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND ADDRESS LOCATION for the proposal due date. | |
| Section L | L.7.2.2, L7.2.3 | 158, 168 | Our FPDS-NG Records do not provide a cumulative award amount; each record only shows an Action Obligation for each individual task order, although these are part of a collection of orders under a single-purpose contract (one relevant experience project). The amount obligated at the time of award is higher than the total actually obligated at the end of the contract. Should we provide the amount the Government actually obligated by the end of the contract and include all FPDS-NG reports to prove the total (as seems to be indicated under L.7.2.3, Number 3--FPDS-NG Record, paragraph 3, page 168)? | No | The Obligated Amount is determined by the total dollars obligated at the time of proposal submission. FPDS attachments should substantiate that value. | |
| Section L | ||||||
| Q&A | L.7.2.3, L.7.2.4 | |||||
| Lines 22, 24, and 27 | 164, 168 | The highest obligated amounts of the contracts we are using to demonstrate our relevant experience for this IDIQ fall outside the range of qualification, although the contracts themselves do not. Please confirm whether the Government wants Vendors to provide the CPARS for the highest obligated amount for a contract whose period of performance is in line with the June 30, 2014 completion date (i.e., a CPARS that might itself NOT be within that range, but is a rating for the highest obligated amount under the collection of task/delivery orders) OR if the Government wants the Vendor to provide a CPARS for the highest obligated amount for which the CPARS itself is within the appropriate Period of Performance completion (i.e., even if other CPARS for the contract being used are for higher obligated amounts but Period of Performance for those particular CPARS fall outside the required completion date). | No | An order that does not meet the obligation value threshold of $150k does not qualify as a relevant experience project. However, a "collection of orders" totaling more than $150k in obligated value may contain individual orders for less than $150k in obligated value. |
When submitting a "collection of orders," Offerors must submit a CPARS for the highest obligated value order, where the last date of the period of performance being evaluated is later than June 30, 2014.
Q&A Line 33 The Government states the following in its answer to the question on line 33:
"The Obligated Amount is the actual amount obligated at the time of award as shown on the SF-1449 (or equivalent award document) and should match the cumulative "Action Obligation" field in FPDS-NG for the most recent final record for that contract/order. Option year(s) should only be included if it meets this criteria."
| However, our FPD-NG Records do not have a cumulative Action Obligation. The records are each filled out as if the only amount awarded was for the single task order rather than the collection that makes up the contract (for a single-purpose contract). Will providing all FPDS-NG records suffice for proving the obligated amount of the contract we are using to demonstrate our relevant experience? | Yes | See RFP Section L.7.2.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT ATTACHMENTS #3 | ||||
| L.5 | 8 | 142 | Does the contractor have to propose each element of the techcial Category 1-Equipment subcategory to be elegible for an award within that subcategory? | No | See RFP | |
| L.7.3.2 TECHNICAL CATEGORY 2 (SERVICES) INSTRUCTIONS | 1 | 172 | If an offeror has a government catalogue awarded under TacCom I, which was solicited under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items and meets the criteria used to define a commercial catalogue in FAR Part 2.101, is offeror permitted to use this catalogue to complete Columns C-G of the TACCOM_II_SERVICES_PRICING template? | No | Yes, the catalog from TACCOM would constitute a Government catalog and must be submitted with price support (sales data) | |
| L.6.1 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL | 5 | 146 | Is offeror permitted to use a 9 or 10 point font when annotating an awarded SOW as long as the data is legible? | Yes | See RFP Section L.6.1 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL | |
| (1) will there be an opportunity to submit a proposal during a refresh if we cannot meet the deadline or will we be out for the duration of the contract? | No | There is no pre-determined deadline for "refresh." | ||||
| (2) Is there a possibility that the deadline will be extended until after the first of the year given the revisions in the amendment? | Yes | See L.5.5 PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND ADDRESS LOCATION | ||||
| TACCOM_II_SUBCATEGORY_EQUIPMENT_PRICING_TEMPLATE.xlsx | Column C | N/A | The Government is requesting references for non-GSA items in order to establish price fair and reasonableness. As a reseller we do not have access to the sales histories of our EOM partners, but we will supply commercial price pages and/or web page links, for any and all non-GSA offered item for the purpose of establishing price fair and reasonableness. Is that acceptable? | No | Sales data must be from the Offeror, except as specified in the RFP. | |
| Section L.6.2 / TACCOM II RFP A0003 | (Table) 2 - Relevant Experience with Past Performance Support Dcouments, Column 5. | 150 | Per Section L.6.2, the Relevant Experience with Past Performance Supporting Documents section of the Proposal Format Table states that one (1) PDF must be used per reference; however due to the government’s email file size restriction of nine megabytes, we have concerns that a single file may be too large for email submission due to the number of modifications and support files. Are Offerors allowed to split the PDF reference files, if necessary, to allow for email submission? | Yes | See RFP Section L.6 PROPOSAL FORMAT | |
| RFP - L.7.2.4 SELF-SCORING WORKSHEET (ONE SUBMISSION PER PROPOSAL, MS EXCEL AND PDF FORMAT) | Item 3: Select the Place of Performance | 168 | In order to utilize a Federal reference with and OCONUS/international delivery to a US Government base/installation (as allowed by Relevant Experience form Part II Item 1) "The paragraph states that "International locations do not receive any points.", but there is no corresponding drop down option in the self-scoring worksheet. Please update form to allow for international delivery or consider international delivery to a US Base as locally, regionally or nationally | Yes | See changes to RFP Section L.7.2.4, Item 3. For international locations, select "Regionally provided service/delivery." | |
| Section L | 7.2.3 | 161 | In the event a selected contract for relevant experience contains disclosure restrictions (i.e. Contracting Officer approval required for releasing the contract, SOW, etc.) even for disclosure to other Government agencies, and the offeror is unable to obtain such approval in time to meet the solicitation requirements, will the DHS allow offerors to provide a point of contact at the procuring agency in order for DHS to directly obtain the required documents to validate relevant experience assertions made in the propsoal? | Yes | Please be advised of the RFP extension. |
image1.png image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .