Question and Answers for Posting Round 2.pdf

Question 1:

We seek clarification regarding the past performance page limit specified in the RFP. There seems to be a discrepancy between the responses provided for Question 13 and Question 211, and we want to ensure our submission aligns with the Government's requirements.

Question 13: For Past performance page count it was mentioned that “Shall Not Exceed 2 Pages”, is it for each PP or overall?

Answer 13: Past performance page count is limited to two pages.

Question 211: "Will the Government please confirm that Offerors have up to two pages per Past Performance reference and not two pages total for this section?"

Answer 211: "Two pages for each past performance submittal."

To clarify, is the past performance section limited to a total of two pages for all references combined, or are Offerors allowed up to two pages per each past performance reference (e.g., 10 past performance references would equal a maximum of 20 pages)?

Answer 1: Answer to Questions 211 is changed to see answer to questions 13. The intent is a listing of past performance. Two pages is enough for a listing.

Question 2:

We seek clarification regarding the applicability of PWS Section 1.6.8 to Key Personnel, as there appears to be conflicting information provided in the responses to Questions 41, 42, and 44. The responses to Questions 41 and 42 suggest that the certification requirements in PWS Section 1.6.8 could apply to Key Personnel, whereas the response to Question 44 explicitly states that PWS 1.6.8 does not apply to Key Personnel. To resolve this discrepancy, could you please confirm whether the requirements in PWS Section 1.6.8 apply to Key Personnel, particularly in relation to certification requirements for personnel supporting Task Areas 1, 2, and 3? Specifically, we need to know if Key Personnel are required to attain and maintain the certifications identified in Section 1.6.8.

Answer 2: Section 1.6.8 does not apply to Key Personnel.

Question 3:

We appreciate the Government's response to Question 61 regarding the submission requirements for Key Personnel. However, we have noticed that while the response indicates that the instructions to offerors and method of evaluation have been revised, we have not received the updated instructions. To ensure our proposal is compliant, could you please provide the revised instructions and evaluation criteria?”

Answer 3: Revised answer to question 61 that delete that instructions to offerors and method of evaluation have been revised; clarifying that in the RFP the evaluation method remain the same.

There has been no change in the method of evaluation.

Questions 4:

Q&A. There are several questions regarding the page limitation for past performance information. For instance, the answer to question 13 indicates the entire volume must be no more than 2 pages while the response to question 211 indicates the limitation is 2 pages per past performance citation. Can the government clearly confirm that offerors’ individual citations should be no more than 2 pages?

Therefore, if an offeror submits 10 citations, the volume must be no more than 20 pages.

Answer 4: See answer to question 1 above.

Question 5:

Q&A, Pricing Worksheet and PWS. The answer to question 210 states that Task 8 (Onboarding Transition) was removed from the PWS however it is still in the Base Level Services in the Pricing Worksheet as CLIN 0008 and has its own tab, however there is no description of how to price it.

Additionally, the answer to question 249 indicates that Onboarding Transition is part of Task 1. Will the government clearly articulate what Onboarding Transition is, which task it is a part of, and what offerors should price?

Answer 5: The onboarding pricing is proposed by the contractor on the level of effort needed to onboard staff.

Question 6:

Staffing Table. Will the government clarify what the strikethrough in row 5 of the Attachment A Staffing Table indicates? Is the Program Coordinator - Network Operations role in scope?

Answer 6: This position was eliminated from the PWS; therefore the strikethrough reflects the change.

Questions 7:

Pricing Worksheet and Staffing Table. The tabs for Task Areas 4, 5 and 6 in the Pricing Worksheet contain the same LCATS (column A) and level of effort despite having different scope and responsibilities. Additionally, these LCATS and corresponding level of effort do not map to the LCATS (column C) and hours (column I) listed in the Staffing Table. Will the government clarify which LCATS and at what LOE offerors are asked to bid?

Answer 7: Please update the worksheets to fit your proposal. The number of hours is dependent on the offerors proposal.

Questions 8:

Will the government clarify why in the Attachment A Staffing Table excel spreadsheet the Labor hours (Column I) and Calc CTE (Column J) columns don't add up for some of the roles. For example, the Senior Systems Engineer (Key Personnel) LCAT (spreadsheet row 53) shows 2080 hours but 4 Calc CTEs. Should the hours be 4 times 2080 hours or a total of 8320 hours?

Answer 8: Where discrepancies arise, the PWS serves as the authoritative document. Attachment A is historical to give a general estimate. The requirement has changed so the number required will be based on an offeror’s proposed technical.

Question 9 Staffing Table. In the Staffing Table Column J (CALC CTE), it appears that formulas that are not universally applied to all rows. For example, row 53 shows 2080 hours in Column I, however Column J shows 4 CTES, which corresponds to 8320 hours. Whereas row 21 shows 10,400 hours in Column I and the CALC CTE in Column J equals 5. Can the government update the Staffing Table, so the intended CTE calculation is clear.

Answer 9: See the answer to question 8.

Question 10

In the Staffing Table, row 28 (Patch Management Lead), row 31 (Firewall Lead Engineer), row 54 (System Administrator) and row 55 (System Administrator) are listed as key personnel, but do not have corresponding descriptions and requirements in the PWS. Please confirm that these four are not considered key personnel.

Answer 10: See the answer to question 8.

Question 11 There is a contradiction regarding the required location for the Program Manager- Network KP in the pricing worksheet vs the PWS.

Answer 11: See the answer to question 8.

Question 12 Specifically, the PWS indicate that the KP must be within a 50-mile radius of Boyers, PA, or Macon, GA, while the pricing worksheet states that the KP can be within a 50-mile radius of Washington, D.C. To ensure compliance and proper staffing, we need confirmation on the following:

a. Please confirm that the role can be located within a 50-mile radius of Washington, D.C.?

Answer 12: See the answer to question 8.