The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Notes to Offerors Please Note questions filled with a black cell in the answer column will be answered at a later date.
General
| Q# | Section/Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | Previous Q&A | In the previous version of Q&A, the government indicated that it intends to make awards for this contract by 1 July 2020. Given current events and that RDCs aren't anticipated to begin until late July, should offerors expect awards to be made in August / September now? | Yes, we are anticipating making awards in late September. | No |
| 2 | General | Does the VA have a target date for when they will provide the answers to questions? | As soon as possible they will likely be released in phases. | No |
| 3 | Technical | Will the government please advise on any technologies it wishes to avoid on the front-end? | The Government cannot provide this information at this time. | No |
Section A
| Q# | Section/Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | A.2 (xv) | As per A.2 (xv) we read that the Technical Factor 3--Written Technical Approach, Price, and Solicitation, Offer & Award Documents, Certifications and Representations Volumes are NOT due on June 18th, 2020. These will be due at a later date after the Technical Factor 2 evaluation. | Yes that is correct. | No |
| 2 | Section A.2 COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION, Page 5, Paragraph (XV), Due date for Technical Factor 1 | | | |
| Discussion: A 1-week extension will provide offerors additional time to prepare case study submissions based on the final RFP requirements, and also provide time to account for any adjustments made based on the Q&A’s from the final RFP. | Will the Government extend the due date for Technical Factor 1 submissions to June 25 by 4PM EST? | No | No | | |
| 3 | | Given the two week response timeline, would the Government consider a second submission of questions for Customer Experience, DevOps, Agile Releases (CEDAR) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract (Solicitation #36C10B20R0013) response? If possible, would the Government consider a second submission of questions on 06/15/2020? | | |
| The Q&A period will not be extended. See Q4 below for further clarification. | No | | | | |
| 4 | General | Does the Government anticipate additional Question and Answer periods as offerors advance to each phase of selection? | Not at this time. If you have an ad hoc question regarding Volumes II through IV or the RDC please submit it to David.Melton@va.gov but the Government cannot guarantee they will be answered prior to the due date for TF1 Case Study submissions. Once this Q&A document is posted with Amendment 0002 no further questions regarding TF1 - Case Studies will be accepted or answered. | No |
| 5 | Page 7; A.4 SOFTWARE LICENSE, MAINTENANCE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT, Paragraphs (f) and (g) | What is the relationship of Agile Sprints to "release/update" or "version/upgrade"? | The terms "Agile Sprints" is not used in the document, however the definitions of sprints are indendent of the definitions provided in A.4 and may vary from Task Order to Task Order. | No |
| 6 | General | When is the first Task Order anticipated after contract award? | Currently we anticipate minimum awards to be made by the end of FY20. | No |
B - PWS
| Q# | Section/Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | Pg. 13; 1.0 | Does the scope includes designing, architecting and implementing a new cloud environment for the VA CEDAR, including new DevSecOps platform and API management solutions? If these platforms and cloud env. already exist, will the new contractor have to use the existing environments/tools as-is or will they have the flexibility to recommend new designs/solutions for the underlying infrastructure/platforms? | The CEDAR IDIQ does not require a cloud environment. All plaform/environment/application requirements will be determined at the Task Order level. | No |
| 2 | 1.0 Objective / Goal #2 | | | |
"Allow for agile delivery services to be delivered in a rapid-cycle fashion, in accordance with industry best practices."
| Pg. 13 | Is the expectation that development and delivery adhere to VIP (Veteran-focused Integration Process) processes and practices? | No | No | | |
| 3 | Pg(s) 15; Section B.3 PWS; 4.2 Ordering Period | What is the anticipated Period of Performance start date? What Period of Performance should the pricing be based on? | We anticipate the ordering period to begin at the end of FY20. | No |
| 4 | Pages 16 & 17; 4.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.6.4 | Will telework be required in lieu of frequent interactions with system users at either governmental or non-governmental facilities? | This will depend on the specific requirements at the Task Order Level. | No |
| 5 | Pg(s) 16, 18, 25 and 41; PWS 4.6.1, 4.8.1, 5.7, and A3.3 | The PWS requires the Contractor comply with the OI&T TRM and perform "VA-certified Section 508 testing." When searching TRM v20.6 for approved Section 508 testing tools, several that are listed are outdated. | | |
Please provide a current list of VA-certified Section 508 testing tools.
| Will the VA provide licensed copies for VA-certified Section 508 testing tools or should this cost be included in Task Order pricing? | Tools for 508 testing may be provided by enterprise licences or included as ODC at the Task Order level. | No | |
| 6 | Pg(s) 16, 18 and 26; PWS 4.6.1, 4.8.1, and 5.13 | The PWS requires the Contractor comply with the OI&T TRM and "that all capabilities delivered under this IDIQ will be instrumented with system monitoring, error tracking, and user analytics." |
| Please provide a current list of VA-certified tools for these functions. | The list of VA approved tools is liseted in - 3.0 Applicable Documents, item 12.One-VA Technical Reference Model (TRM) | No | | | |
| 7 | Section 4.8 (Enterprise IT and Framework) - Pg 21 | The government indicates that the contractor shall be agile and incorporate agile ceremonies yet later in the RFP, another set of meeting requirements and reviews are identified. Is the government open to integrating legacy program ceremonies with agile ceremonies? For example, government participation in routine sprint reviews will improve performance. Shorter, more frequent, and purposeful meetings are proven to be more effective (early impediment identification, response to change, etc.) | The Government would consider such changes after contract award but not at this time. | No |
| 8 | Section 4.8 (Enterprise IT and Framework) - Pg 21 | Management Tools. Is the government using a management tool such as Atlassian's JIRA or equivalent? If so, which one and will the government version be accessible or will vendors provide their own instance? Will the government require access for transparency? | The Government may provide and will require access to all tools used to manage issue tracking and documentation. | No |
| 9 | Section 4.8 (Enterprise IT and Framework) - Pg 22 | What is best-in-class security given the constraints of the environment? Would the government please provide more guidance here? | The Government doesn't understand what is being asked here. Any more specific techncial constraints will be addressed at the Task Order level. | No |
| 10 | 4.8.2 Federal Identity, Credential, And Access Management (FICAM): | | | |
"The Contractor shall ensure all Contractor delivered applications and systems support:
2. Interfacing with VA’s Master Veteran Index (MVI) to provision identity attributes, if the solution relies on VA user identities. MVI is the authoritative source for VA user identity data."
| Pg. 19 | Some VA systems currently in production such as VBMS, do not have full integration with MVI and use alternative identifiers such as SSN. Does this requirement apply to potential interfaces with such systems? | Such considerations will be made at the Task Order level. | No |
| 11 | 5.0 TECHNICAL FUNCTIONAL AREAS: | |
1. User Research and User Story Collaboration:
"If requested in the Task Order, the contractor shall have the ability to recruit test users from a variety of backgrounds including Veterans, Servicemembers, family members, and caregivers for the purpose of conducting the research."
| Pg. 24 | Please clarify if the contractor will directly recruit or if they shall provide only the approach to the VA federal team to do so. | Recruiting may happen through a variety of mechanisms at the Task Order level. These include Government provided distribution lists, contractor supported professional recruiting services, or the vendor may be asked to directly recruit users for user research on their own products. | No |
| 12 | 5.0 TECHNICAL FUNCTIONAL AREAS: | |
1. User Research and User Story Collaboration:
"If requested in the Task Order, the contractor shall have the ability to recruit test users from a variety of backgrounds including Veterans, Servicemembers, family members, and caregivers for the purpose of conducting the research."
| Pg. 24 | If the contractor is to directly recruit, will the Government be furnishing access and/or contact information to potential test users for the purposes of recruiting, or is an independently identified user population preferred/required? | Recruiting may happen through a variety of mechanisms at the Task Order level. These include Government provided distribution lists, contractor supported professional recruiting services, or the vendor may be asked to directly recruit users for user research on their own products. | No | | |
| 13 | Section 5.0 (Technical Functional Areas) - Pg 24 | A best practice is to have a clearly identified Product Owner. A single product owner will help synthesize stakeholder interests (end user, contracting officer and technical representative, program office, etc.) given the complexities of federal contracting. Does the government intend to identify and provide Product Owners for each effort? | Yes, the Government intends to identify Product Owners appropraite to the individual products at the Task Order levels. | No |
| 14 | 5.0.4 p 25 | | | |
| The RFP states: "Agile software development: Developing software in an iterative style following the modern best practices described in the Digital Services Playbook (https://playbook.cio.gov)" | Question: Is this specific to Play #4 or all plays? | This statement is not limited to Play #4. | No |
| 15 | Reference: Section 5.0 Technical Functional Areas – Item Number 8: Customer Support – Page 25 | |
In Section 5.0, Item number 8, it states the following: Customer Support: The contractor shall ensure users can get support for the products it delivers. As specified in the call order, the contractor shall ensure existing VA customer-support channels have the information, training and system access required to provide support, and if specified may be requested to provide direct Tier 1, 2 and/or 3 customer support capabilities.
| Under the General Requirements the RFP states that: Work at a Government site shall not take place on Federal holidays or weekends unless directed by the CO. The Contractor may also be required to support 24/7 operations 365 days per year as identified in individual Task Orders. | Does the government have requirements for the availability of Tier 1, 2, and 3 customer support? Will support be required during specific hours or 24/7/365 or more on an as-needed basis? Also, will this requirement be defined on a Task Order basis? | Yes, this requirement will be defined on a Task Order basis. | No | | |
| 16 | Page 25; 5.0 TECHNICAL FUNCTIONAL AREAS, Paragraph 10 | What form of system architecture does the VA run and/or plan to run for the Task Orders: VM, on-premise, hybrid cloud, or cloud? | This requirement will be defined on a Task Order basis. | No |
| 17 | Page 25; 5.0 TECHNICAL FUNCTIONAL AREAS, Paragraph 11 | Under what platform does the VA operate and/or plan to operate to support Task Order(s) code repository or will the Contractor be required to establish a virtual environment under VA standards? | This requirement will be defined on a Task Order basis. | No |
| 18 | Section 5.0 (Technical Functional Areas) - Pg 26 | Would the government please clarify if there are VA-preferred Business Intelligence or visualization tools for metrics reporting (e.g., Power BI, Tableau, Microstrategy, PWIK)? | This requirement will be defined on a Task Order basis. | No |
| 19 | B.7.2.b, pg 27; 9.2.4 | This section states that the Contractor will provide a roster of contractor and subcontractor employees 3 business days after award to begin background investigations. It is sometimes difficult to obtain this type of information for the entire proposed workforce in such a short period of time. Would the government consider changing this requirement to 5 business days after award? | Such changes can be considered at the Task Order level after contract award. | No |
| 20 | B.7.2.b, pg 27; 9.2.4 | This section states that the Contractor Staff Roster shall be updated and provided to VA within one business day of any changes in employee status, training certification completion status, background investigation level status, additions/removal of employees, etc, throughout the period of performance. Would the government consider changing this requirement to 2 business days after the employee has notified the contractor? | Such changes can be considered at the Task Order level after contract award. | No |
| 21 | B.7.2.g, pg 28 | This section states that the Contractor shall be responsible for the actions of "all" personnel provided to work for VA under this contract. Would the government consider revising this section to read: the Contractor shall be responsible for the actions of all personnel employed by the contractor to work for VA under this Contract"? | See updated RFP | Yes see Amendment 0002 |
| 22 | | What is the percentage of the overall task orders requiring security cleared personnel? | This will depend on the specific requirements at the Task Order Level. | No |
| 23 | RFP, Section 8.3.1 Request for Task Execution Plan (RTEP) Process, page 31 | | | |
| “In some cases, prior to issuance of a formal RTEP, a Request for Information (RFI) or other market research request may be released to assist the Government in gathering industry feedback to inform RTEPs.” | a) | If there are only five (5) awardees, does the Government still plan to issue RFIs under this vehicle? | |
| b) | If yes, are there a minimum number of responses required to the RFI before an RTEP is released? | Yes we do still plan to issue RFI's under this vehicle depending on the circumstances of the requirement. At this time there are no minimum number of responses however, we would need two or more responses from Contract Holders of CEDAR in order to set it aside. | No |
| 24 | RFP, Section 8.3.2 Task Order Administration, B.1, page 32 | |
| “Subcontractor(s) shall be identified by name, DUNS and CAGE Code at all tiers (as applicable)” | For RTEP responses, the VA indicates that there will be subcontractors delineated into different tier levels. Should contractors be assigning tiers to major subcontractors as part of our response in listing subcontractors? | No, we will not require subcontractors be assigned tiers in response to this RFP. | No |
| 25 | RFP, Section 8.3.2 Task Order Administration, B.1, page 32 | |
“When responding to an RTEP set-aside for SDVOSB Offerors, the summary tab shall also include a breakout of the total price by dollars, percentages, and socio-economic status for the Prime and each of its proposed Subcontractors.”
| Can the government please clarify – if only SDVOSBs are able to prime, then all RTEPs under this vehicle will be designated as set-aside for SDVOSB Offerors?” | Correct the reference to SDVOSB has been removed as each RTEP will be set-aside to SDVOSBs. | Yes see Amendment 0002 |
| 26 | Pg(s) 34 and 35; PWS 9.1 and 9.2 | The PWS directs Monthly Base Contract-Level reporting for Labor Hour Status Report deliverables and Monthly Task Order-Level report deliverables to be Section 508 compliant. The link provided for additional information (https://www.section508.va.gov/support/index.asp) is broken. |
| Please provide an updated link for additional information on Section 508 compliance expectations. | See updated RFP | Yes see Amendment 0002 | | | |
| 27 | Section B.4, Information System Design & Development, Pg 49 | In Item 10 there is the following statement: "Such issues shall be remediated as quickly as is practical, but in no event longer than _____days". What is the contractual number of days expected to remediate these security vulnerabilities? | This requirement will be determined at the Task Order Level | No |
| 28 | Section B.4, Information System Design & Development, Pg 50 | In Item 11 there is the following statement: "When the vendor is responsible for operations or maintenance of the Systems, they shall apply the Security Fixes within _____ days". What is the contractual number of days expected to apply these security fixes? | This requirement will be determined at the Task Order Level | No |
| 29 | Section B4. (Information System Design and Development) - Pg 49 | This section references two vulnerability clauses that do not have the remediation timeframes filled in, "but in no event longer than BLANK days". Could the government please confirm how may days for bullets 11 and 12? | This requirement will be determined at the Task Order Level | No |
| 30 | Page 50, Para B. | In the RFP the number of days is left blank referencing how long the vendor has to apply security fixes. The RFP states "When the vendor is responsible for operations or maintenance of the Systems, they shall apply the Security Fixes within (blank) days." Please confirm this number. | This requirement will be determined at the Task Order Level | No |
| 31 | Pg(s) 49; B.4.10 | This paragraph is incomplete. Please specify the maximum number of days permitted for remediation. | This requirement will be determined at the Task Order Level | No |
| 32 | Pg(s) 50; B.4.11 | This paragraph is incomplete. Please specify the maximum number of days permitted for Security Fixes. | This requirement will be determined at the Task Order Level | No |
C - Clauses
| Q# | Section/Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | Section C.14, Off Ramp, Pg 74 | The Off Ramping criteria states "contract holders are not bidding on a reasonable number of Task Orders during contract performance". What is meant by reasonable? Eg. 3 per year? | Although the Government cannot provide a specific measure of reasonablness at this time, the intent is to ensure robust competition is available at the Task Order level throughout the life of the contract. | No |
| 2 | Section C.15 (f) | | | |
The Contractor agrees to enter into written agreements with all companies whose proprietary data he shall have access and to protect such data from unauthorized use or disclosure as long as it remains proprietary. The Contractor shall furnish to the CO copies of these written agreements. The Contractor agrees to protect the proprietary data and rights of other organizations disclosed to the Contractor during performance of this contract with the same caution that a reasonably prudent Contractor would use to safeguard highly valuable property. The Contractor agrees to refrain from using proprietary information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Should the Non-Disclosure Agreement between the Prime Contractor and Subcontractor shall be provided upon submission of proposal or upon award of a Contract to Prime Contractor? If prior to award, where should it be included in the proposal? This requirment may apply to certain task orders but nothing is required at the basic contract level. No
Section D - 001 and 002
| Q# | Section/Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | Section D.1 | We noticed that the labor category descriptions were not included in the FINAL package. | | |
As we prepare our team coordination with regards to price, can you please advise industry when/if we will expect to see those?
| 2 | Attachment 001 | Could you please provide position descriptions for each LCAT. |
| 3 | Page 32; Section 8.3.2 B.3; | |
| Section 8.3.2 (Task Order Administration), (B)(3) states "The Labor Categories submitted shall reference the Government designated numbering scheme in the Labor Category Description Attachment 001." | The RFP did not include a separate attachment for the Labor Cateogry Description and Qualification. Can the Government please provide this document? | |
| 4 | E.8 BASIS FOR AWARD |
2. PRICE/COST EVALUATION APPROACH
| Pg. 110 | Will the government provide labor category descriptions and minimum years experience/education for the labor categories, or is the contractor expected to define these as part of the pricing proposal? | |
| 5 | 8.3.2/32 |
C16/77 E7/107
| E8/110 & 111 | The RFP and Attachment 001 do not provide Labor Category Descriptions, please clarify if offeror's should propose their own LCAT Descriptions or if the VA will provide LCAT Discerptions? | | |
| 6 | 8.3.2 B.3/32 | The RFP states "The Labor Categories submitted shall reference the Government designated numbering scheme in the Labor Category Description Attachment 001." However there is no reference to a "designated numbering scheme", or Labor Category descriptions, in Attachment 001. Can the government clarify? |
| 7 | | Attachment 0001, Price Evaluation Spreadsheet, provides labor category titles but no descriptions or minimum qualifications. Solicitation clause C.16, “Incorporation of Rates and Labor Descriptions” does not provide labor category descriptions or require those of the offerors. Would the government provide the minimum qualifications for the required Labor Categories to ensure all offerors are |
| 8 | | Will the Government provide the attachment of Labor Category Descriptions as indicated by the Draft RFP Q&A and the solicitation? |
| 9 | RFP 8.3.2 B.3 and Attachment 001; Labor Categories | The government refers to “Labor Categories submitted shall reference the Government designated numbering scheme in the Labor Category Description in Attachment 001.” However, there are no Labor Category Description, years of experience only Labor Category titles and Maximum Fair and Reasonable Labor Rate. Would the government please provide the required years of experience for each Labor Category. |
| 10 | Section D1, Attachment 0001 – Pricing Spreadsheet | To help ensure we are pricing resources that matche the government's expected level of education and experience, will the government please provide the labor category (LCAT) descriptions, inclusive of education and years of experience, for the LCATs in Attachment 0001 or direct us to the appropriate schedule to use as basis of understanding the LCAT qualifications? |
| 11 | Attachment 001, Rate Sheet | Rate Sheet. The LCATs listing does not provide minimum qualifications (education and experience) for each category. Will the Government please provide minimum education and experience levels for these categories? |
| 12 | Attachment 1, Price Evaluation Spreadhseet, Rate Sheet Tab | Will the VA provide Labor Category Descriptions to include description, education, and experience requirements? |
| 13 | Attachment 1, Price Evaluation Spreadhseet, Rate Sheet Tab | Based on the spreadsheet, will offerors proposed fully burdened labor rates need to account for both on-site and off-site work? |
| 14 | | Will the Government utilize different labor rates within labor categories at the Task Order level to differentiate work accomplished at government sites versus work performed at contractor sites? |
| 15 | Attachment 001, Rate Sheet | Price/Cost. Is there any guidance on inflation factor for future rate. |
| 16 | Attachment 002 | Please clarify the maximum rate column and what it represents. |
Are you asking that for all five years that no one year exceeds the maximum or are you asking that a cumulative rate over five years do not exceed the maximum rate?
E - Provisions
| Q# | Section/Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | Pg(s) 79; SECTION E - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS | FAR 52.204-7 (SAM); If the Offeror is currently registered in SAM, is the Offeror required to complete and submit Representations and Certifications or is a statement confirming our registration in SAM on the cover letter acceptable? | SAM will be checked by the Government at receipt of Proposal Volumes at at time of Award and the same procedure will be done at the task order level so no statement is necessary. In terms of Representations and Certifications section of each Offeror's proposal please see Section E Proposal instructions and applicable clauses. | No |
| 2 | E.1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference, page 79 | RFP E.1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference, page 79, includes FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Mar 2020), FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisitions (Jan 2017) and FAR 52.215-1, Alt. I. Should FAR 52.215-1 and 52.215-1 Alt. I be deleted? | See Tab E - Prop Sub Gen + TF1 Q16 | No |
| 3 | E.2 52.204-24 REPRESENTATION REGARDING CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (DEC 2019), p. 79 | Please confirm that this certification can be included in the response in (v) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATION, OFFER & AWARD DOCUMENTS, CERTIFICATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS. | Yes in accordance with RFP Section E.7.2.(v)d. Certifications and Representations | No |
| 4 | E.3 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (OCT 2018), p. 80 | Please confirm that this certification can be included in the response in (v) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATION, OFFER & AWARD DOCUMENTS, CERTIFICATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS. | Yes in accordance with RFP Section E.7.2.(v)d. Certifications and Representations | No |
| 5 | E.4 52.212-3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAR 2020), p. 82 | Please confirm that this certification can be included in the response in (v) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATION, OFFER & AWARD DOCUMENTS, CERTIFICATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS. | Yes in accordance with RFP Section E.7.2.(v)d. Certifications and Representations | No |
| 6 | Section E.4, 52.212-3, para. (b)(2), Page 86 | The last sentence of this paragraph appears incomplete. Did the VA intend to finish the last sentence with additional words, or perhaps a blank line or brackets into which changes (if any) to the SAM representations and certifications could be made by an offeror? | | |
E - Prop Sub - Gen + TF1
| Q# | Propsal Submission Section | Reference/Page # | Question | Answer | RFP Amendment Made |
| 1 | General | Pg(s) 102; E.7.2.a | The RFP reads "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password)." | | |
May the offeror add its Company Team name to the filname?
| If the Government shall not have the password, how will you be able to open the file? Please calrify if you mean that the document shall be locked to prevent editing without the password. | Please see Amendment 0002 which updates this section. The documents shall be locked to prevent editing, not password protected to secure access to the documents. | Yes - See Amendment 0002 | |
| 2 | General | E.7 Proposal Submission Instructions (2.0 Proposal Files) - Pg 101 |
| The government's instructions for submission of Volumes seems problematic - "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password)." | Could the government please confirm that all submitted volumes must be in MS Word or Excel and be password protected? Could the government please clarify how offerors are to provide passwords to the files to unlock them (e.g., providing the password in the submission email may defeat the purpose of providing a PW protected file)? | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 3 | General | Section E.7.2.a/Page 102 |
| The submission instructions in this section read “All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password).” | We assume this should read “(the Government shall be provided the password).” Please clarify. | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 4 | General | Page 102 |
All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password).
Question: Did the government mean to provide the password via another email? I don't understand how the government will review the documents if we cannot provide you the password.
| Please see response to Q1 above | No | |
| 5 | General | E.7.2.a Proposal Files Format, Page 102 |
| The RFP states "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password)." | Can the Government please confirm that the files are to be password protected but Offers should not provide the password? | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 6 | General | Page 33 |
The Summary and Technical Volumes shall be submitted as a .doc or .docx file (unless otherwise specified at the Task Order level) with password protection (the password shall not be provided to the Government).
How will the government open the documents?
| a. | Page 102 All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password). | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 7 | General | Section E.7.2.a |
| Page 102 | Did the Government mean that all files submitted as Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) be password protected from editing through the use of a password that shall not be provided to the Government? | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 8 | General | E.7.2.a, pg 103 |
| Section E.7.2.a, page 103, states "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password)." | Please clarify if the files should be password protected or not. If the files should be password protected, please clarify how the passwords should be provided to the Government. | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 9 | General | Pg. 102 Section E.7.2.a Format |
| RFP states, "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password).” | How/when will govt. be provided with the passwords? | Please see response to Q1 above | No | | | |
| 10 | General | Section E.8.2.a states "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password)." | Can the Government clarify how they will evaluate proposals if no password is provided? If the password should be provided, please provide instructions for offerors on how to provide it. | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 11 | General | Section E.7.2.a – Format, Page 102 of 111 | | | |
| RFP Section E.7.2.a (Format) states: “All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password).” | If offerors do not provide the Government with the passwords, then the Government will not be able to open the documents. Instead of “password protected”, did the Government mean that editing should be restricted on the documents? | Please see response to Q1 above | No | |
| 12 | General | "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password).”, page 102. | Does the government want the password submitted via phone or another separate method? |
| Please see response to Q1 above | No | | |
| 13 | General | RFP Section E.7.2.a Proposal Submission | |
| The Government states, “All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password).” | Will the Government clarify how they will be able to view the documents if they are password protected without receiving the password from the vendor? | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 14 | General | E.7.2.d |
| The solicitation states that "All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password)." | Attachment 001 - Price Evaluation Spreadsheet is already password protected and therefore we are unable to password protect it. If it is the government's intent to have the offeror password protect the pricing spreadseet, would the government please release a version of this file that is not password already protected? | Please see response to Q1 above | No |
| 15 | General | RFP: P. 102 |
2. PROPOSAL FILES.
a. Format
| “All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file, both of which shall be password protected (the Government shall not be provided the password). “ | How does the government intend to open and evaluate the file without being given the password? | Please see response to Q1 above | No | | | |
| 16 | General | (ref. pg. 79 and 101) | Solicitation clauses FAR 52.212-, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Acquisition (ref. pg. 79 and 101) and FAR 52.215-1, Alt. 1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition both contain directions regarding proposal cover page content. Does the Government want the Offeror proposals to meet both clauses by blending the requirements of both? | Please refer to FAR 52.212-1. FAR 52.215-1 and its Alternate I have been removed from the RFP. | Yes - See Amendment 0002 |
| 17 | General | E.7.2.a Proposal Files; p. 102 of 111 | | | |
| "...Font size shall be no smaller than 12-point. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Characters shall be set at no less than normal spacing and 100% scale. Tables and illustrations must be no smaller than 10-point. Line spacing shall be set at no less than single space." | Will the government allow Arial Narrow as an acceptable font? | No just Arial or Times New Roman. | No | | | |
| 18 | General | | Can subcontractors submit artifacts directly to the government via a "sealed package" to maintain security for the project illustrated in the artifact? | No | No |
| 19 | General | Pg(s) 102; E.7.2.a | The RFP offers several opportunities for the offeror to submit Artifacts, including screen shots to demonstrate the development effort or results. Please clarify if the font size standards in the section entitled proposal files also apply to artifacts such as screen shots? | No | Yes - See Amendment 0002 |
| 20 | General | Q&A, Section E, Question 26 | The Government indicates a 10MB email response limit. Because of the nature of file size for some artifacts (i.e., image files and PowerPoint), if necessary, can artifacts be broken into two files to ensure successful submission? | Please see Amendment 0002 which updates this section. Each Offeror's Volume I-Case Study Volume shall now be submitted via VOA. | Yes - See Amendment 0002 |
| 21 | General | QA_v2, Section E, Question 26 | | | |
| In response to question 26 from Section E of the draft Q&A released with the RFP, "Since proposal submission is via email, is there any limitation of the attachment size?" the government responds "10 Megabytes per e-mail transmission" | Will the Government confirm that each file can be up to 10MBs and that multiple email transmissions are allowed per volume submission? Furthermore, will the Government allow offerors to use .ZIP files to consolidate and condense their submission package for transmission? | Please see response to Q20. For Volumes II to IV, each email is limited to 10MB and yes, multiple emails is acceptable. However, .zip files cannot be used as VA's email system will not accept them. | Yes - See Amendment 0002 | | | |
| 22 | General | Section E.7.1 – Introduction, Page 101 of 111 | RFP Section E.7.1 (Introduction) refers to the Volumes as 1, 2, 3, and 4. All other sections below refer to the Volumes as I, II, III, and IV (using Roman numerals). Which is correct? | Please see Amendment 0002. | Yes - See Amendment 0002 |
| 23 | General | | Is there a limitation on the number of major subcontractors a contractor is allowed to have on a team? | No | No |
| 24 | General | RFP, E.7.1, Introduction, page 101 | | | |
| “WARNING: Please do not wait until the last minute to submit your proposals! Late proposals will not be accepted for evaluation. To avoid submission of late proposals, we recommend the transmission of your proposal file 24 hours prior to the required proposal due date and time. Please be advised that timeliness is determined by the date and time an Offeror’s proposal is received by the Government not when an Offeror attempted transmission. Offerors are encouraged to review and ensure that sufficient bandwidth is available on their end of the transmission.” | Will the VA confirm receipt of proposal submission so contractors can confirm that their proposal has been received? | The new submission method for Volume I referenced in Q20 will include a confirmation function for Offerors when they submit a proposal. For the Volume II through IV submissions please attach a read receipt to the submissions if you would like confirmation. | No | |
| 25 | General | Pg. 101 Section E.1 | Will the Government provide receipt of submission (i.e. for each Volume and Artifacts) notifications to offerers? |
If not, how can offerers be assured that the Government successfully received all uploads?
| See Answer to Q24 | No | | | | |
| 26 | General | | Is it ok to list assumptions? | Yes but as part of Volume IV, however, Offerors are reminded that any Offeror-imposed terms and conditions and/or assumptions which deviate from the Government’s material terms and conditions established by the Solicitation, may render the Offeror’s proposal Unacceptable, and thus ineligible for award. | No |
| 27 | General | | Are compressed files (.ZIP, .RAR, etc) accepted? | See Answer to Q21 | No |
| 28 | General | Evaluation Approach | Does the government plan to impose a limit on the number of Offerors selected to move forward after evaluations are completed for Volume 1-Technical Factor 1 Case Studies? If so, will the government please provide that number? | No, Technical Factor 1 is an advisory step and it will be up to the Offeror to choose to proceed based on the feedback provided by the Government. | No |
| 29 | General | Pg(s) 5 and 110; A.2.xv and E.8.C.1 | | | |
| The RFP reads "Offerors who notify the Government of their intent to remain in the competition after the Advisory Step will then be provided the date and time of each Offeror’s Technical Factor 2 –Remote Design Challenge, and the due date for the Technical Factor 3--Written Technical Approach, Price, and Solicitation, Offer & Award Documents, Certifications and Representations Volumes." | How much time do you anticipate will be between the Case Study down-select notification from VA and the due date for Volumes II, III, and IV? | A very rough estimate based on the information we have at this time would be approximately 3 Weeks. It will be the same date for all Offerors and will be after the completion of all Offeror's RDC. | No | | | |
| 30 | General | E7/102 | Would the government please provide a timeframe for how long offeror's will have after completion of Technical Factor 2 – RDC and receiving an Advisory Letter until Volumes II, III, and IV will be released and the submission due date? | The Government cannot provide an answer as this question seems ambiguous. Please see the answer to Q30 this may be what you are looking for. | No |
| 31 | General | E.7.2.a and E.7.2.b, pg 102 | 2.a states that files shall be submitted as either Word or Excel, but the table in 2.b has Volume IV as a PDF file. Please confirm it is acceptable to submit Volume IV as a PDF. | Confirmed should be PDF. See Amendment 0002 which updates section 2a. accordingly. | Yes - See Amendment 0002 |
| 32 | TF1 - Case Studies | Proposal Instructions Section E.7 - 2.b(i) | | | |
| The Case Studies and their respective artifacts (please include name of case study in the file name along with the name of the respective artifact and do not combine them as each one should stand alone), shall be provided via email to David.Melton@va.gov on the due date included in the solicitation. | Will the Gov't please clarify how it wants the case studies and artifacts packaged? All case studies in one document and artifacts in a second document? Or each case study and its artifacts in separate documents? | See Answer to Q33 and Q43 | No | | | |
| 33 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7 Proposal Submission Instructions (2.0 Proposal Files, I Volume 1 -Technical Factor 1) - Pg 105 | Regarding submission of Case Studies - could the government please clarify if offerors should separate Case Study write ups into stand alone MS Word Files or should Case Studies be combined into a single Volume as indicated in the Volume Table on page 102? Should page numbers, headers/footers, and other proposal indicators be used for artifact submission? | The Case studies should be in a single document | Yes - See Amendment 0002 |
| 34 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7 Proposal Submission Instructions (2.0 Proposal Files, I Volume 1 -Technical Factor 1) - Pg 105 | Regarding Artifacts - can multiple artifacts from a single Case Study be combined into a single document or should each artifact be submitted separately? | No, each artifact shall standalone. See Q43 for further details. | |
| No | | | | | |
| 35 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7.2.b (i) | | | |
The instructions state: "The Case Studies and their respective artifacts (please include name of case study in the file name along with the name of the respective artifact and do not combine them as each one should stand alone)… On a separate document please submit a list of all major subcontractors..."
1) Please confirm Offerors are to submit 5 files for Volume I:
• 1 stand-alone file for each Case Study plus Artifact(s), totaling 3 separate documents
• Certification Letter (Attachment 003)
• Subcontractor List
2) If each document is to be a stand-alone submission, please provide the details of what is to be included in the Volume I document titled "Tech1.doc or docx".
3) Please provide the preferred naming convention for the separately-submitted Subcontractor List and Certification Letter (Attachment 003). See Answer to Q43
| No | | |
| 36 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7.2.b (i) |
The instructions state: "The Case Studies and their respective artifacts (please include name of case study in the file name along with the name of the respective artifact", and also further state "Artifacts can take many formats including but not limited to text files, PDF documents, …" Please clarify whether each Artifact is to be submitted as a standalone document, or included in the appropriate Case Study document.
| See Answer to Q43 | No | | | | |
| 37 | TF1 - Case Studies | Page 105; Case Studies and Artifact Submission | Can the Government clarify that Case Studies and each Case Study Artifacts should be submitted as separate files. | See Answer to Q43 | No |
| 38 | TF1 - Case Studies | Section E.7.2.a | | | |
| Page 102 | Should Case Study Artifact files submitted as Microsoft Word or Excel have editing restrictions enforced through the use of a password that shall not be provided to the Government? | Yes, see response to Q1 | No | | | |
| 39 | TF1 - Case Studies | Section E.7.2.a | | | |
| Page 102 | Should Volume IV and Case Study Artifact files submitted in .pdf format have editing restrictions applied through the use of a password? | Yes, see response to Q1 | No | | | |
| 40 | TF1 - Case Studies | Section E.7.2.b.i | | | |
| Page 105 | The response to Section E, question 26 on the limitation of email attachment sizes specifies a 10 Megabyte limit per email transmission. An individual Case Study Artifact file that contain images can easily meet or exceed that limit. Is it permissible to submit the Case Study Artifacts in one or multiple emails, separate from the Volume I submission? | Please see answer to Q21 | No | | | |
| 41 | TF1 - Case Studies | Section E.7.2.b.i | | | |
| Page 105 | Will the Government accept the Case Study Artifacts files compressed in one or multiple .zip files? If yes, what is the naming convention recommended by the Government for the .zip file(s). | Please see answer to Q21 | No | | | |
| 42 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7.2.b pg 102, E.7.2.i pg 105 | The table in E.7.2.b states tha the Case Study shall be a word doc with the filename Tech1.docx. Will the Government please confirm each artifact, the Subcontractors List, and the Certification statement (Attach 0003) shall be submitted as separate files? Also please confirm that only the Tech1.docx file is required to be submitted in Word format. | See answer to Q43 | |
| No | | | | | |
| 43 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7.2.b Content Requirements (Table on page 102) and | | | |
| E.7.2.b(i) (para 2 on page 105) | On page 102, in the table it states the file name should be Tech 1.docx for Volume 1. At the end of Tech Factor 1, on page 105, it states "please include name of case study in the file name along with the name of the respective artifact and do not combine them as each one should stand alone". Please clarify. Are you meaning that each Case Study and their artifacts should be a separate file name identified such as Tech 1 Case 1 Agile SW Dev Case Study.docx and then Tech 1 Case 1 Agile SW Dev Artifact Name.docx? or should the Case Study just be called Tech 1.docx and the Artifacts be called Tech 1 Artifact 1.xxx? | The naming for the files in the Technical Factor 1 Submission should be as follows: | | | | |
Tech1.doc or docx (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) (Name or Artifact) for (Name of Case Study) List of Major Subcontractors Attachment 003 – Certification of Proposed Major Subcontractors and non-use of Consultants
| No | | | | | |
| 44 | TF1 - Case Studies | Page 105, it states “The Case Studies and their respective artifacts (please include name of case study in the file name along with the name of the respective artifact and do not combine them as each one should stand alone), shall be provided via email to David.Melton@va.gov on the due date included in the solicitation. Any explanations related to the artifacts shall be included at the bottom of each case study.” | Please confirm if the government wants each Artifact as an individual document and not to be included in Tech1.doc. If so, does the government have any specific naming convention for the separate Artifact file name? Do these Artifact files need to be password protected? | See Answer to Q21 and Q43 | |
| No | | | | | |
| 45 | TF1 - Case Studies | | For the case study documents and the corresponding artifact(s) document, what is the maximum file size per document? | Please see Answer to Q21 | No |
| 46 | TF1 - Case Studies | | Can each case study file, including artifact files, be emailed separately? | Please see Answer to Q21 | No |
| 47 | TF1 - Case Studies | | Are Acrobat Optimized PDF files acceptable in case study artifact email submissions? | Please see Answer to Q21 | No |
| 48 | TF1 - Case Studies | E.7 Proposal Submission, p. 102 | | | |
| "Tables and illustrations must be no smaller than 10-point. " | The offeror may have no control over the font size of artifacts provided in Phase 1, in particular if the artifact must fit on an 8.5x11 page. Would the government waive deviations in the font size requirements for Phase 1 artifacts provided that they are legible? | Please see Amendment 0002 which clarifies this requirement. In regards to the naming convention for artifacts please see answer to Q43. | | |
| Yes - See Amendment 0002 | | | |
| 49 | TF1 - Case Studies | 2. PROPOSAL FILES. Offeror’s responses shall be submitted in accordance with the following instructions:, p. 102 | The table on page 102 provides naming for one (1) file submission for Volume I, whereas the instructions for submitting artifacts on page 105 states that they should be separate files. Can the government clarify the requirement, or confirm that the following is acceptable, where (X) is the relevant case study number: |
Tech1-Cover.docx (cover page, table of contents and glossary) Tech1-Case Study1.docx Tech1-Case Study2.docx Tech1-Case Study3.docx Tech1-Case Study(X)Artifact1.docx Tech1-Case Study(X)Artifact2.docx Tech1-Case Study(X)Artifact9.docx Tech1-Attachment0003.docx
| Tech1-List of Subcontractors.docx | See Answer to Q43 | No | |
| 50 | TF1 - Case Studies | RFP, Section E.7 Proposal Submission, Section (1) Volume I – TECHNICAL FACTOR 1—Case Studies, page 105 |
| “The Case Studies and their respective artifacts (please include name of case study in the file name along with the name of the respective artifact and do not combine them as each one should stand alone), shall be provided via email to David.Melton@va.gov on the due date included in the solicitation. Any explanations related to the artifacts shall be included at the bottom of each case study. On a separate document please submit a list of all major subcontractors regardless of whether they have a case study attributed to them including their DUNS, socio-economic size status, and the Functional Area(s) they are anticipated to support.” | To clarify, there is a potential total of twelve (12) documents as part of the Volume 1 submission, to include the one (1) Technical Volume containing the case studies, one (1) list of major subcontractors, one (1) completed certification letter, and up to nine (9) artifacts. | Correct | No |
| 51 | TF1 - Case Studies | RFP, Section E.7 Proposal Submission, Section (1) Volume I – TECHNICAL FACTOR 1—Case Studies, page 105 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
