Webinar_Q&A_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TACCOM II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 2017036109
About this file
This document contains the questions and answers from a webinar held to discuss revisions made in Amendment A0009 to the TacCom II solicitation. The webinar aimed to clarify changes made to the requirements for proposals, including revisions to the past performance rating form cover letter, compliance checklists, and self-scoring worksheets. Additional details were provided on requirements for the equipment and services pricing templates, price narratives, manufacturer specifications, and past performance documentation. Questions covered validation of previous submissions, resubmitting information, treatment of incomplete past performance records, and treatment of proposals unable to obtain new CO/COR signatures. The document indicates an extension to the proposal deadline will be provided through Amendment A0010 and no further questions will be accepted.
Webinar Questions and Answers 3.9.2018
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
3.9.18 Webinar Response
| # | Question/Response Submitter | Question | CBP/OA Response |
| 1 | Please repeat the connection between the cover letter and PPQ | A0009 revisions to the Past Performance Rating Form are limited to the cover letter, specifying that the evaluated performance should be limited to the highest obligated value order meeting the period of performance requirement. Compliant Past Performance Rating Forms previously submitted may be resubmitted with revised proposals. | |
| 2 | TacCom II Offerorg | Will these slides be sent to Offerors after this webinar? | CBP-Yes. |
| 3 | TacCom II Offeror 54 | to include all that information, can the cover letter exceed a single page? | CBP-JK: Please review the volume limit in the RFP |
| 4 | TacCom II Offerorg 2 | Does the Government recognize that the cost for industry to respond to these changes will be expensive and time consuming? | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 5 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | drop down menu in F5 in TC2 is not working. | CBP-JK: We will review |
Additional Response: No drop-down error was found.
| 6 | TacCom II Offeror 72 | Can you please inform the reason behind asking the vendors to resubmit the proposal? | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in satisfying all instructions of the RFP. |
| 7 | TacCom II Offeror 39 | Please confirm offerors should include 52 | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 8 | TacCom II Offeror 75 | for fpds sheets should they be based on initial award or the last modification or both? | CBP-Flowers: An FPDS document should be provided for all awards and modifications submitted for evaluation. |
Additional response: This instruction is not new to A0009. Please refer to Section L.7.2.3, Part 3.
| 9 | TacCom II Offeror 36 | Award type: For Item 3, can you explain further options 2 & 3? Where is the Multiple Award definition? | See A0009 Page 157; this instruction is not new to A0009. |
| 10 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | Amendment A0009 provides an additional requirement for the FPDS to have also selected specified drop-down fields under the "Fair Opportunity/Limited Sources" field. In our experience, the drop down under this field is often not completed for the delivery/task orders. Given the short time frame to gain CO Certification for this missing information will the Government accept "Competed" or "Full and Open Competition" indicators in the other FPDS Competition Information fields for purposes of allowing the full points under this scoring section 1 7? | The FPDS submission requirement is not new to the RFP. Nor is the evaluation approach to use Relevant Experience Attachments to validate points claimed, including points for competitive awards under FAR 16.505. |
| 11 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | For non-Federal - state or local projects experience based on a single large contract, please clarify the identifying info requested on top of this workbook | RESERVED |
| 12 | TacCom II Offeror 27 | For the CO / COR - Is the Gov't looking for CO listed on Award doc, or the current CO if there was a change? | Cognizant CO refers to the contracting officer currently responsible for the contract. This instruction is not new to A0009. |
| 13 | TacCom II Offeror 68 | Considering that offerors have already completed all the work required, would the government please give offerors additional time to address this updated set of requirements? | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 14 | TacCom II Offeror 54 | In Proposal Workbook tab 6 Validation, what should the offeror include in the yellow cell by “Evaluator”? Should this be left blank and gray? Thank you. | This cell is for Government Use Only. The Workbooks have been updated with the evaluator field formatted in blue (for government input). |
| 15 | TacCom II Offeror 78 | I'm still hearing an echo, which is making it hard to understand the narration. | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 16 | TacCom II Offeror 14 | Solicitation states "8 | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 17 | TacCom II Offeror 75 | CPARS/PPIRS amendment says that it does not have to be completed. This was not the case previously. Are we to submit the pending CPARS or the previous periods completed CPARS. | CBP Presenter - Claire: When you have an incomplete PPIRS you may submit but it is not mandatory. The RFP previously stated that incomplete PPIRS must be used. |
Additional response: When a CPARS meeting the period of performance requirements is published in "completed" status, it must be submitted. If a completed CPARS in completed status does not exist or does not meet the June 30, 2014 period of performance requirement, offerors may either submit a "pending" CPARS report that meets the period of performance requirement, or the Past Performance Rating Form.
| 18 | TacCom II Offeror 38 | Re the last statement; what if CPARS is done at the IDIQ level and not the DO level such that there is no specific CPARS for the highest value order? May offerors submit CPARS for the IDIQ and receive full credit? | No |
| 19 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | We are asked to complete 3 Past Performance Rating forms/relevant projects. Which ONE do we list as the Contract # on the Workbook | Per Section L.7.2.3, Part 4, A record of evaluated Past Performance must be provided for each Relevant Experience Project submitted in response to this solicitation. That is, each project A, B, and C must have a separate past performance record. Further, When submitting a “collection of delivery/task orders,” use the single CPARS/PPIRS record with a period of performance completion date later than June 30, 2014 that represents the highest obligated dollar amount under the Relevant Experience Project. Only this single CPARS/PPIRS shall be used for input into the Self-Scoring Worksheet. |
The instruction that a project submitted as a "collection of orders" be supported by a past performance record for the largest value order meeting the period of performance requirement is not new to A0009.
| 20 | TacCom II Offeror 39 | If offeror's prior Past Performance Form and CO-Cor Certification Form have not changes and were compliant, please confirm we do not need to go back to our CORs or COs again | Offerors must use the CO-COR Certification form; The Relevant Experience Form is not acceptable. |
| 21 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | clarify distinction (in state / local government work) between obligated amount and contract amount | RESERVED |
| 22 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | If we submitted a PP Rating Form last time, but there now exists a PPIRS record, should we now submit the PPIRS record rather than the completed PP Form? | If the most recent PPIRS record is in completed status, it must be submitted. |
| 23 | TacCom II Offeror 27 | Can we use a previously submitted PP Rating Form instead of reaching back out to have the CO / COR sign the new form? | The previously submitted Past Performance Rating Form may be submitted; however, offerors should ensure that it complies with the instructions in the RFP, including the instruction that the form reflects ratings associated with the highest obligated value order among a "collection of orders" and that the rated period end date is later than June 30,2014. |
| 24 | TacCom II Offeror 67 | Since the proposal resubmissions were requested, and there are substantial modifications to the RFP and section L, will the government be having another Q&A process? | |
| 25 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | will the questions asked be answered in writing | Yes. |
| 26 | TacCom II Offeror 67 | questions via chat may not be efficient | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 27 | TacCom II Offeror 56 | is an IDIQ MAC prime award = to a project? if so, is a TO award against the IDIQ MAC = to a n order? | No. These definitions have been consistent with all amendments. Please refer to pages 156 and 157 of A0009. Refer to the definitions for a Multiple-award contract and a "collection of orders." |
| 28 | TacCom II Offeror 78 | Please clarify "the PIPRS database that is linked to the CPARS." | The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the government entry point for past performance ratings on Federal contracts. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) is the data retrieval point of the same information. Evaluated contractors should have access to both. |
| 29 | TacCom II Offeror 10 | How do you deal with no FPDS? Isn't that where the IDV appears? | The IDV should be evident on the award forms. The requirement for FPDS submission is not new to A0009; see Section, L.7.2.3, Part 3. |
| 30 | TacCom II Offeror 2 | The information may be same/similar but there is much to still be clarified and it will take a lot of time for vendors to respond efficiently. | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 31 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | Why didn't CBP simply accept those proposals received last time that WERE compliant and complete, rather than reissuing for everyone to have to respond again? | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in considering whether previously submitted proposal documents comply with RFP instructions. |
| 32 | TacCom II Offeror 40 | Can the government consider granting more time? | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 33 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | If we have to go AGAIN for customer ratings using the past performance form, we will need more time, and we will be asking clients for the 3rd time to support this solicitation | Please see Amendment A0010 for post-proposal delivery of CO-COR Certification Forms. |
| 34 | TacCom II Offeror 52 | The original Past Performance Rating Forms filled out by the customers did not have a section requesting period of performance being evaluated. So how can any of the previously submitted forms be viewed as compliant | The date fields were added to the Past Performance Rating Forms in Amendment A0005. Per L.7.2.3, Part 4, for Past Performance Rating Forms completed prior to the release of Amendment 3 (A0003), an e-mail validating the Period of Performance evaluated from the cognizant Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer Representative shall be attached. This instruction is not new to A0009. |
| 35 | TacCom II Offeror 67 | In the PP Rating Form, it asks for "Offerors must identify only one Contract number in the Contract or Order Number field in Section A.' We provided both the contract number and the associated task order number. Is this revision intended to clarify that we need only provide one (e.g., just the task order number)? | The Past Performance Rating Form may cite an order number along with the associated IDV, so long as the evaluated past performance ratings apply to the single order representing the highest obligated value order among a project submitted as a "collection of orders." |
| 36 | TacCom II Offeror 2 | I think it's clear that this is not necessarily simpler as there are numerous questions and clarifications still needed | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 37 | TacCom II Offeror 51 | I would also like to know why if we were originally compliant why we have to resubmit to include all of the additional information that was not originally requested. | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in considering whether previously submitted proposal documents comply with RFP instructions. |
| 38 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | If the CO/COR signing off on the PP Rating Form filled in the wrong period of Performance for evaluation, should we go back to the CO/COR to revise the Period of Performance, or have them fill out a CO/COR certification form to address the discrepancy? | Either will suffice as long as the CO asserts that the ratings apply to the corrected period of performance. |
| 39 | TacCom II Offeror 41 | Agreed^ An extension to the proposal timeline to review the compliance matrix vs. our past submittal and then recreate a new submittal will take more time than 2 weeks. Will CBP extend the proposal due date 4-6 weeks? | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 40 | TacCom II Offeror 7 | It appears that there is a new/changed instruction that requires offerors to rename the Relevant Experience programs with A, B, C... Is that really the case? In the original submission it was numerical. | Yes. Please use A, B and C within the attachment naming convention. |
| 41 | TacCom II Offeror 72 | Will the Govt inform the vendors individually, what the discrepancies are in their submission, so they are not repeated? | No. |
| 42 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | Isn't it MANDATORY to list 3 relevant experience projects? | No. The maximum is three. |
| 43 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | are relevance narratives limited to one page | Yes. |
| 44 | TacCom II Offeror 51 | If a project is disqualified, doesn't that make the offeror disqualified? | An offeror may still receive points for other projects if one project receives no points. |
| 45 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | Do questions entered into the chat box also have to be re-submitted via email? | CBP-Scott: No, questions answered into the chat box are being captured for response, if applicable |
| 46 | TacCom II Offeror 38 | If offerors submitted Contracting Officer/COR (or equivalent) statements addressing past performance information, are we now required to obtain signatures on the new form even if no new information needs to be confirmed? | The previously submitted Past Performance Rating Form may be submitted; offerors should ensure that it complies with the instructions in the RFP, including the instruction that the form reflects ratings associated with the highest obligated value order among a "collection of orders" and that the rated period end date is later than June 30,2014. |
| 47 | TacCom II Offeror 46 | Do all award modification documents need to be submitted? | Per Section L.7.2.3 Part 2, for projects in which the Schedule of Supplies/Services or work requirements subject to validation have been changed through a modification, the modified Schedule of Supplies/Services and contractual requirements document shall be submitted. |
| 48 | TacCom II Offeror 54 | In L.7*2*3, if all orders are from the same IDIQ, can the Offeror submit #1-3 only once to simplify the submission for all parties involved? | No. Applicable relevant experience attachments must be submitted for each project. Further, attachments 1-3 should reflect the order award, the particular order requirements documents, and the particular FPDS for each order under the IDIQ. Since each order can only be submitted once, and since each order would reflect different data (i.e. period of performance, deliverables, order value, delivery locations, etc.), a single submission would not substantiate claimed points. |
| 49 | TacCom II Offeror 75 | Seaport-e a navy contracting and procurement system issues award documents that are "Signed by System", there is no real signature from the Government and award documents do not need to be signed by Offeror. What do we need to do in this case? | Please use the Relevance Narrative to address system generated signatures. |
| 50 | TacCom II Offeror 54 | For 7*3*1 TC1 Price Narrative, can this be submitted in PDF instead of Word? | CBP-Scott: Yes, PDF or Word is fine for price narrative. |
| 51 | TacCom II Offeror 31 | Does that mean all the smaller accessory spec sheets need to be provided or will the main radio spec sheet only be acceptable? | Any separately priced item must be submitted with an associated specification sheet. Features/characteristics bundled into a single product must be evidenced within the specification sheet for that product. |
| 52 | James Ross | Products in TC1 Radios consist of approximately 7-10 components - do you expect 7-10 spec sheets for each product? | Per L.7.3.1, only the base product and any separately priced items must be supported by a manufacturer specification sheet. (For each make and model proposed in the Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template, the manufacturer’s product specification sheet shall be submitted) |
| 53 | TacCom II Offeror 31 | Many of those items do not have their own spec sheets | Any separately priced item must be submitted with an associated specification sheet. Features/characteristics bundled into a single product must be evidenced within the specification sheet for that product. |
| 54 | TacCom II Offeror 4 | What should be part of a price narrative for a piece of hardware, especially when you also want manufacturer specification? | The price narrative should not be a technical narrative. The price narrative should be used to address differences in price data (GSA Schedule, catalog, sales data prices), discount methodologies, historical volume or other price related factors influencing TacCom II prices. |
| 55 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | I noticed that the submission of files that are too big and must be split up does not appear to match the new naming conventions for the resubmission of the Relevant Experience projects (that is, they are now named A, B, C rather than 1, 2, 3). Therefore, should any files split for size purposes now be labeled CompanyName.VOL2*TC1*RelExpA-1*pdf vs. CompanyName.VOL2*TC1*RelExp1-A.pdf? | This is acceptable. Per Section L.6, Proposal file submissions as directed by the Proposal Format Table may be separated, only to the extent necessary, to meet the above file size restrictions. |
| 56 | James Ross | Will you allow another Government catalog as pricing support instead GSA | Yes. Other government catalogs were previously accepted under the RFP and this remains unchanged in A0009. |
| 57 | TacCom II Offeror 56 | May resellers submit their contracted OEMs GSA or Commercial contract as price justification? | OEM data shall not substitute the requirement for the offeror's GSA or catalog based price submission in the Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template and respective price data submissions in the price proposal. However, offerors may address the basis of their price in the price narrative. |
| 58 | James Ross | And why isn't this a GSA schedule contract? since you are using GSA as a basis | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 59 | TacCom II Offeror 68 | Would the Government please put together a consolidated list of the "delta" requirements that have changed? | Changes are marked in red font in the RFP Amendment A0009 |
| 60 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | Sales Data within the last three years, or no earlier than June 30, 2014 like everything else? | A0010 will be revised to accept sales data no earlier than December of 2014. |
| 61 | TacCom II Offeror 51 | Is this call only covering Equipment? I | CBP-JK: It will be covering both TCs |
| 62 | TacCom II Offeror 54 | Please clarify whether columns F-I in the Pricing Template should be yellow instead of gray. | CBP Presenter - Claire: #54 please see automated color change feature |
| 63 | TacCom II Offeror 31 | Can we use another Federal contract catalog for price reference, such as NASA SEWP V? | CBP Presenter - Claire: #31, other federal contract catalogs may be used for "price data" but must also be supplemented by sales data for that product in the last 3 years |
| 64 | James Ross | What if there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between components and part numbers - i.e. it takes multiple parts to provide TDMA operation - yet there is only a single entry for that component | CBP Presenter - Claire: James Ross - use the comments section to explain. The manufacturer specs should evidence the explanation |
| 65 | TacCom II Offeror 73 | Please clarify your definition of "collection of orders". | CBP Presenter - Claire: #73 - see definition of collection of orders on p.157 |
CBP Presenter - Claire: When a Single-Award or Multiple-Award Indefinite Delivery contract’s or BPA’s requirements are well defined, for a specific purpose(s), and orders are issued on a recurring basis, a collection of orders (7) placed under it may be combined and submitted as a single project. The collection of orders must be under a single master contract and must be reflected as a single “Reference IDV” in FPDS and on the Relevant Experience Qualification Checklist
| 66 | TacCom II Offeror 29 | Bundled is misspelled in checklist. Sorry to be picky! | Typo will be corrected with A0010. |
| 67 | TacCom II Offeror 10 | With a collection of orders, a bundle, I understand we present them (the ones we intend to cite) in order--highest value first. And then we provide Award info, schedule, FPDS and PPIRS for each order in the bundle? | Please see Section L.7.2.3: For a “collection of orders” the largest obligated value order and associated attachments shall be submitted first. The second largest obligated dollar value order and all attachments shall be submitted second. Follow this sequence for all submitted orders under the project and associated attachments. At a minimum, attachments 1-4 are required for the largest obligated value order; at a minimum, attachments 1-3 are required for all proceeding orders. |
| 68 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | The only two choices are GSA Schedule or commercial catalog? I thought you could provide sales data for items not on our GSA schedule? | The instruction for Price Data submission is unchanged in Amendment A0009. See Section L.7.3.2: If the offeror does not have GSA Schedule pricing for a proposed product, or its GSA Schedule price does not serve as the basis for the proposed TacCom II ceiling price, including applicable discounts, the Offeror’s published price catalog/price list or other government catalog shall be submitted with the proposal, along with price support (sales data) where the same product item has previously been sold, within the last three years. Any GSA Schedule contract or catalog submitted must be that of the Offeror. |
| 69 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | The only two choices are GSA Schedule or commercial catalog? I thought you could provide sales data for items not on our GSA schedule? | DUPLICATE |
| 70 | TacCom II Offeror 3 | Please advise as to why the requested materials pricing template does not align with the past performance evaluation hardware. I.E. No Software, Control Stations, Desk Sets, Transportable, Civil Infrastructure, IP Desk sets etc. | The price template is constructed to address core requirements under each subcategory. |
| 71 | TacCom II Offeror 43 | Although much of the initial information submitted will be utilized in these reformatted workbooks there is substantial work that needs to be completed. That said will the government extend the response date to the end of March? | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 72 | James Ross | Since it will require multiple sales data to support separately priced items - it looks like you only provide only line for contract number | The A0010 Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template will include additional instructions for sales data exceeding the space allotted. |
| 73 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | can vendors just price support the main line item? | No. Price support as required by Section L.7.3.2 is required for each separately priced item. |
| 74 | TacCom II Offeror 32 | Many of us are at IWCE this week. Please consider an extension. This seems like a lot to be reworked. And we name need to recontact our government references. | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 75 | TacCom II Offeror 8 | "GSA Schedule" or "Commercial Catalog" are the only two options in your drop-down list. | CBP Presenter - Claire: Yes. Answers is the same as 76 below. |
| 76 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | If we submit another federal catalog, should we select "Commercial catalog" even though it's not a commercial catalog? | CBP Presenter - Claire: Yes. Please select "commercial catalog" source in column F of the Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template when using an other Federal catalog. |
| 77 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | Can you explain a little further what should be included in the Price Narrative? Can you provide an example? | The price narrative should not be a technical narrative. The price narrative should be used to address differences in price data (GSA Schedule, catalog, sales data prices), discount methodologies, historical volume or other price related factors influencing TacCom II prices. |
| 78 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | understood, but no room on matrix t o do so | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 79 | TacCom II Offeror 65 | Please confirm that vendors have to provide sales data only for the main model number, if proposing a commercial catalog, as there is no field to provide sales data for the other separately priced item. | CBP Presenter - Claire: 65 - incorrect. Offerors must submit sales data for separately priced items |
| 80 | TacCom II Offeror 30 | What is the minimum categories that need to be quoted in order to participate? If a SMB quotes only the Radios, is that acceptable? | Please read the RFP. |
| 82 | TacCom II Offeror 4 | If all prices is a discount from the GSA Schedule, is a price narrative required? | CBP Presenter - Claire: Offeror 4 – yes. price narrative is required for all products proposed. |
Additional Response: The former response should be, "price narrative is required for all solutions proposed." The TacCom II price for a given solution may be associated with one product or a set of products. Because product price sources may vary, a narrative is requested for each solution. Citing the discount applied against GSA Schedule prices would be appropriate within the price narrative.
| 83 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | If we qualify as a small business under a specific NAICS Code, and therefore do not have to submit a SB Plan, how are we to provide "certification" of SB status - can we just refer to the information in SAM as proof of our employee size? | Offerors must self-certify that it meets the small business size standard for the Technical Category and the applicable NAICS code. |
| 84 | James Ross | Please confirm that the 3 accessory requirement is a change from the original requirement | CBP-Scott: That is not a change. That was a formatting change only. |
| 85 | TacCom II Offeror 3 | Please advise as to why the requested materials pricing template does not align with the past performance evaluation hardware. I.E. No Software, Control Stations, Desk Sets, Transportable, Civil Infrastructure, IP Desk sets etc. | The price template is constructed to address core requirements under each subcategory. |
| 86 | TacCom II Offeror 24 | What if more than 3 accessories are offered per item? That is allowed, however, a detailed response of required for all items offered. A partial response will be considered incomplete. | Accessories are considered a single solution within the Subcategory Equipment Pricing Template. In order to receive credit for this single solution, at least three items must be priced and proposed in a manner that meets or exceeds the specifications/characteristics. If pricing fewer than three accessories, the solution is not acceptable. If four accessories are proposed and only three are found to be acceptable, the offeror will receive credit for that solution. If five accessories are proposed and each is found to be technically acceptable, the offeror will receive credit for that solution. No additional points are earned for exceeding three technically acceptable accessories. |
| 87 | Taccom II Offeror 63 | Will this presentation be emailed to the previous distribution list? | CBP-Scott: Yes, we will email the presentation. |
| 88 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | I think people are referring to Solution Set 4 under Radios, which has Propose 3 in red, which typically indicates a change - is that red writing just a clarification that you don't have to propose all Portable Accessories to respond to Solution 4 under Radios? | CBP-Scott: Correct, red here is for emphasis, not for a change. that is standard throughout the equipment workbook. Red = emphasis. |
| 89 | TacCom II Offeror | Will the government remove "and 7*3*2" from the second column and "CompanyName.VOL3*TC2CATALOG.xls/pdf," from the last column? | Yes |
| 90 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | Have any of the LCAT categories, descriptions, or educational requirements changed from the previous RFP? | CBP-Scott: No, changes. |
Additional Response: a column was added in A0009 to include the experience equivalent for a bachelor's degree.
| 91 | TacCom II Offeror 65 | There is a subscriber tab in that workbook, on the 1st tab. Should that be removed? | Yes. |
| 92 | TACCOMII Offeror 2 | Are labor categories aligned with those in Past Performance? | Past performance/past experience labor data represented in Relevant Experience Project attachments will not be used for the price analysis. |
| 93 | TacCom II Offeror 17 | Notations added to SOWs and other supporting documents are supposed to be in a 10-pt. font. In some cases, to fit the complete narrative on the document without altering the original, we had to use an 8-pt. font. Will you allow this change? | 8pt font is acceptable. |
| 94 | TacCom II Offeror 17 | Just to verify your prior statement, if we are going to be using the same projects to validate our past performance, could we use the previous CO-COR signed forms as validation of our capabilities rather than have the CO-CORs sign them again? We really would like to avoid imposing on our customers once again. | Offerors must use the CO-COR Certification form; The Relevant Experience Form is not acceptable. |
| 95 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | So we no longer have to provide any supporting documentation for our proposed pricing for services? | CBP Presenter - Claire: Everything that you need to provide is in the Services Pricing Template. |
| 96 | TacCom II Offeror 67 | The revisions for the TC2 services pricing greatly simplifies the submission. Thank you. | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 97 | TacCom II Offerorg 2 | Can the Government please let us know why this change is happening at all? | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in satisfying all instructions of the RFP. |
| 98 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | To expand on Offeror 66 question - we no longer have to include copies of Contracts noted with where the various labor categories were used in that contract? | Price data supplementing the offeror's proposed labor in the Services Price Template is not required. |
| 99 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | yes this is very helpful.....thank you for taking the time to talk us through this | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 100 | TacCom II Offeror 49 | if no mapping to GSA or commercial rates. and only pricing to Gov required LC, how will you determine price reasonableness of offered rates? | Per Section M.7.2, the Government will use techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to support the price analysis. |
| 101 | TacCom II Offeror 39 | In addition to the CO-COR signed forms, can offeror use the originally signed CO-COR Certification forms? | Offerors must use the CO-COR Certification form; The Relevant Experience Form is not acceptable. |
| 102 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | How will our proposed pricing be evaluated? Will it be evaluated for price reasonableness in order to qualify for award? | Per Section M.7.2, the Government will use techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to support the price analysis. |
| 102 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | when can we get the answers to the questions asked here back in writing?......and will vendors be given adequate time to incorporate them? | Questions and answers are provided herein. |
| 104 | TacCom II Offeror 65 | When populating the TacCom II Services Pricing Template, the cells remain gray; they do not update to yellow. Is this acceptable? | Yes. As stated in the webinar, those cells are gray because the offeror is not required to propose all labor categories. |
| 105 | TacCom II Offerorg 2 | I appreciate that you have tried to make this simpler, but that hasn't really been accomplished and vendors will not have to spend several thousand dollars each to revise their bids. | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in satisfying all instructions of the RFP. |
| 106 | TacCom II Offeror 54 | For Section J Attachments, Attachment #6 is not listed, and Attachment #9 is not included. Is there an Attachment #6? And should we use the original questions template (#9)? | A0009 revision includes strike-through text for Attachment 6. The contents of this attachment is substantially embedded in the Services Pricing Template. Separate submission of the worksheet formerly titled Attachment 6, TacCom II LCAT MAP Template is not required. Refer to the submission instructions in L.7.3.2 for submitting price proposals responsive to the TC2 requirements. |
No additional questions will be formally accepted at this time.
| 107 | TacCom II Offeror 67 | For materials submitted with the proposal initially (e.g., FPDS information), is it acceptable to resubmit the information previously provided or does the government expect offerors to go back and ensure all information provided is up to date? For example, we have received contract modds since the initial submission that change prior reported values | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in considering whether previously submitted proposal documents comply with RFP instructions. Offerors must be fully responsive to each amendment. |
| 108 | TacCom II Offeror 66 | Do you want us to submit our questions via email if we've asked something here that hasn't been answered during the chat? | All webinar questions have been captured in this spreadsheet. |
| 109 | TacCom II Offeror 34 | Will there be an opportunity to submit more questions regarding the proposal formatting prior to submission? | No additional questions will be formally accepted at this time. |
| 110 | TacCom II Offeror 48 | what is the evaluation criteria for price on services? | Per Section M.7.2, the Government will use techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to support the price analysis. |
| 111 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | When will questions be answered, and when will we know if te due date is extended, based on questions asked today? | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 112 | TacCom II Offeror 78 | Will you be answering the chat box questions by e-mail as well? | Questions and answers are provided herein. |
| 113 | RPGS | Is there a place where I can review this webinar at a later date | Yes. |
| 114 | TacCom II Offeror 26 | Is Attachment J – Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan document required to be submitted by all offerors or just large company offerors? If it is required to be submitted by Small Businesses in any or all of the categories, what sections are required to be completed? | Please refer to Section L.7.1.3. |
| 115 | TacCom II Offeror 43 | Where will the answers to these questions be posted? | Questions and answers are provided herein. |
| 117 | TacCom II Offeror 38 | Will the Government provide a record of the Q&A addressed during the webinar? | Questions and answers are provided herein. |
| 118 | TacCom II Offeror 10 | can you post a transcript of the Webinar? | Procurement Innovation Lab PIL: We have recorded this webinar and anticipate being able to share a URL to a recording of the webinar |
| 119 | TacCom II Offeror 72 | What is the time frame to submit question regarding RFP? | No additional questions will be formally accepted at this time. |
| 120 | TacCom II Offeror 26 | Will the PowerPoint Presentation also be posted as a separate document from the recording? | The slides from the webinar have been distributed. |
| 121 | TacCom II Offeror 8 | Do I understand correctly that the "Past Performance Evaluation Form" has been changed, and therefore we need to get them re-completed by the CO/CORs? | A0009 revisions to the Past Performance Rating Form are limited to the cover letter, specifying that the evaluated performance should be limited to the highest obligated value order. That order must also have an evaluated period of performance with an end date later than June 30, 2014. Compliant Past Performance Rating Forms previously submitted may be resubmitted with revised proposals. |
| 122 | TacCom II Offeror 21 | if an extension is granted can you please do so prior to the weekend to avoid vendors having to work the weekend un-necessarily | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 123 | TACCOMII Offeror 2 | As to labor categories: Do they need to align with past performance? | Past performance/past experience labor data represented in Relevant Experience Project attachments will not be used for the price analysis. |
| 124 | TacCom II Offeror 24 | Serious consideration should be given to extend the due date! | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 125 | TacCom II Offeror 26 | Thank you for scheduling this webinar. It was very helpful. | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 126 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | I understand that the Past Performance Evaluation Form has NOT been changed and we do not need to have our CO/CORs complete them again. Please confirm. | A0009 revisions to the Past Performance Rating Form are limited to the cover letter, specifying that the evaluated performance should be limited to the highest obligated value order. That order must also have an evaluated period of performance with an end date later than June 30, 2014. Compliant Past Performance Rating Forms previously submitted may be resubmitted with revised proposals. |
| 127 | TacCom II Offeror 3 | Would the government consider better aligning TC1 equipment pricing with the past performance requirements. I.E. A test equipment vendor does not have a place to quote their hardware on the current price worksheet. | The price template is constructed to address core requirements under each subcategory. |
| 128 | TacCom II Offeror 8 | In the previous submission, some discrepancies were exempt from needing to get a CO/COR signature. (POP, NAICS codes, etc.). are they still exempt? | Per Section L.7.2.2, In the event of a discrepancy between contract award forms, FPDS, or CPARS/PPIRS for an item subject to government validation (through the Relevant Experience Qualification Checklist or Self-Score Worksheet), a correction from the Contracting Officer should be requested. For the period of performance the Relevant Experience Attachments must evidence that the last date of the term being evaluated is later than June 30, 2014. Note: the "Date Signed" is no longer a qualification standard, and CO certification of "Places of Performance" would not be required if the requirements documents accurately document locations. See clarification in Section L.7.2.3 Part 3. |
| 129 | TacCom II Offeror 52 | If a customer on the Past Performance Rating sheet left a category blank, can we assume that it is N/A, instead of asking them to fill out a new form with an N/A box? | Yes. |
| 130 | TacCom II Offeror 41 | Please extend the Q&A deadline 4-6 weeks to allow past performance forms to be submitted to client and returned | Please see Amendment A0010 for post-proposal delivery of CO-COR Certification Forms. |
| 131 | TacCom II Offeror 44 | So we will be going for the THIRD time to our clients to complete basically the same form. This is not fair to them. | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 132 | Anon | In the relevant experience section are offers permitted to submit the most recent FPDS form or do they need to submit the FDPS record for each modification. | Please refer to Section L.7.2.3. Relevant instructions are unchanged in Amendment A0009. |
| 133 | TacCom II Offerorg 2 | Unfortunately, going back repeatedly to clients does a disservice to them as it further takes them away from their mission. | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 134 | TacCom II Offeror 41 | Please amend the requirement to resubmit the relevant experience forms. Our clients will be bothered with the multiple requests regarding taccom past performance. Please allow us to submit the previously signed documents | Submission of the Relevant Experience Form is not acceptable; Please see Amendment A0010 for post-proposal delivery of CO-COR Certification Forms. |
| 135 | TacCom II Offeror 18 | can you not take the previously submitted signed past performance docs since we have went back to that same well over as a result of you moving the goal posts | Submission of the Relevant Experience Form is not acceptable; Please see Amendment A0010 for post-proposal delivery of CO-COR Certification Forms. |
| 136 | Anon | Due to the number of questions submitted during this webinar, we are requesting an extension of 3 weeks | Offerors are advised that the proposal deadline will be extended via A0010. |
| 137 | TacCom II Offeror 22 | Please explain rationale for adding the new validation requirement in the FPDS as to the drop down box under the Competition block. | This requirement is not new. FPDS-NG records have been a requirement for project submission in each solicitation revision and is necessary for validation of Item 7, Section 1 of the Self-Scoring Worksheet. The supplemental information provided helps the offeror to understand which FPDS selections qualify for points under this item. |
| 138 | TacCom II Offeror 8 | Not to mention several CO/CORs are not in the positions anymore, and are very difficult to get a hold of. | The RFP indicates that the cognizant CO/COR must sign CO-COR Certification Forms and the Past Performance Rating From. Note, Amendment A0010 will allow for CO-COR Certification forms to be delivered after the due date for proposal submissions. |
| 139 | TacCom II Offeror 22 | It appears offerors are being penalized for the Government not checking all of the boxes although they marked awards as competed | Offerors are strongly advised to be diligent in satisfying all instructions of the RFP. |
| 140 | TacCom II Offeror 22 | It appears offerors are being penalized for the Government not checking all of the boxes although they marked awards as competed | DUPLICATE |
| 141 | TacCom II Offeror 18 | can you tell everyone at CBP they must answer presented past performance forms? | NO RESPONSE REQUIRED |
| 142 | TacCom II Offeror 17 | Just to verify your prior statement, if we are going to be using the same projects to validate our past performance and our PPR meets the requirements of the current cover letter, could we use the previous CO-COR signed forms as validation of our capabilities rather than have the CO-CORs sign them again? We really would like to avoid imposing on our customers once again. | Offerors must use the CO-COR Certification form; The Relevant Experience Form is not acceptable. |
| 143 | TacCom II Offeror 12 | Please clarify how offerors will be treated if they are unable, after reasonable attempts to obtain CO/COR signature on documents. | Please see Amendment A0010 for post-proposal delivery of CO-COR Certification Forms. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .