2GIT_Draft_RFQ_Questions_and_Responses_19_Dec_2018.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 65 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 2nd Generation Information Technology (2GIT) Blanket Purchase Agreement Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 47QTCA-19-Q-0009
- Issued by
- GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
2GIT Draft RFQ Questions and Responses 19 Dec 2018
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment_B__Breadth_of_OEMs_Self_Scoring_Assessment.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Appendix_3__2GIT_BPA_Category_Management_Report_CMR.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_C__2GIT_Relevant_Experience_Self_Scoring_Assessment.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_E__Market_Basket.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Appendix_2__RFQ_Acronym_Listing.docx | DOCX document | |
| Section_1.11.1_Format_for_2GIT_Requirements_BPA_Questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_A__2GIT_BPA_RFQ_Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix_1__RFQ_Definitions.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_D__Socioeconomic_Team_Makeup_Structure_Self_Scoring_Assessment.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2GIT_DRAFT_RFQ_Version_2__dtd_19_Dec_2018.pdf | ||
| 2GIT_DRAFT_RFQ_47QTCA-19-Q-0009.pdf | ||
| Attachment_A_Experience_Factor.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_B_-_Market_Basket.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 13
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
2GIT Draft RFQ Questions
| Control Number | Question | Sanitized Section Number | BPA Reference | ||||
| (Section Number) | Comment | Recommended Answer/ | |||||
| Solution Rationale | Response to Industry | ||||||
| 1 | Please clarify, Multi or single award BPA? | 1 | 1. Instructions to Offerors | In one instance in the above referenced section, it states that a single award BPA will be established. In another instance in the same section it states the government intends to award 3 to 5 multiple BPAs. | N/A | A Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) will be established in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.405-3(b)(1)(ii)(B)(1) competitive procedures for establishing a BPA | |
| 2 | The Cloud Offerings SIN 132-40 is included in the RFP, however no cloud products are in the market basket and there is no “lane” for these kinds of products/services. Is the intent to add them? | 1.1 | 1.1, 1.2, and 10.2 | It’s unclear how the Government will integrate Cloud Offerings from SIN 132-40. | Include an explanation of how SIN 132-40 will be integrated into the BPA line items. | The market basket is being updated. Cloud will not be part of the 2GIT solution at this time. It was considered but decided out of scope for a products BPA. | |
| 3 | Will the Government consider setting-aside a specific number of BPAs per LIN for small business? | 1.1 | RFQ Section 1.1 | The Government states: |
“All interested GSA Schedule 70 SINs 132-8, 132-12, 132-32, 132-33, 132-34 and 132-40 contract holders are eligible to submit quotes.”
And:
“The Government intends to award (To Be Determined) three to five (3 to 5) Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)s per BPA LIN for a total of fifteen to twenty-five (15 to 25) Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreement…”
| This appears to put small businesses in the same bidding pool as large businesses. | By setting aside a minimum of 3 BPAs per LIN for small business concerns, this will ensure a greater probability the Government will reach its (Prime) small business goal requirements. Additionally, this will allow the government to conduct task order competitions as small business set-asides. | A small business set-aside was discussed and considered but not approprate at BPA level. However ordering activies may choose Small Business Set-asides if deemed appropriate for their individual acquisitions. | |||
| 4 | Will the Government consider making a larger number of BPAs per LIN? | 1.1 | RFQ Section 1.1 | The Government states: |
“The Government intends to award (To Be Determined) three to five (3 to 5) Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)s per BPA LIN for a total of fifteen to twenty-five (15 to 25) Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreements.”
| Without a set-aside pool or a specified number of set-asides, the large vendors will have significant advantage and could potentially fill the 3-5 awards per LIN without small businesses getting any award on the BPA. | Increasing the number of BPAs per LIN will provide the Government a larger pool of awardees, resulting in more robust competition and a broader range of proposed solutions. It will also enable the small businesses to have a better chance for an award on each of the LINs. | The strategy of making awards per BPA Line Item Number has been altered. This acquisition will now be awarded as a total solution in lieu of making awards per BPA Line Item Number. Teaming arrangements are allowed at the BPA level. GSA intends to make approximatley 10 awards as a total solution. See RFQ for updates. | |||||
| 5 | N/A | 1.1 | 1.1 General Instructions | In this section it states that “the Government intends to award (To Be Determined) three to five (3 to 5) Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) per BPA LIN.” | We recommend that this number of awards be increased due to the large number of GSA holders that will potentially be capable of responding to this RFQ. One possible solution is that the government should consider dropping a published number and award the BPA LINs to any number of offerors that submit a qualified proposal. | The strategy of making awards per BPA Line Item Number has been altered. This acquisition will now be awarded as a total solution in lieu of making awards per BPA Line Item Number. Teaming arangements are now allowed at the BPA level. GSA intends to make approximatley 7 to 10 awards as a total solution. See RFQ for updates. | |
| 9 | It is stated that "Failure to provide any required attachment and the self-evaluation document via Google forms will result in exclusion from consideration of award." Please provide details on the "self-evaluation" document as we do not see it attached. | 1.12 | 1.12 | Please provide document. | Please provide document. | The self-evaluation document was not released with the draft RFQ. Only comments and suggestions are needed in response to the draft RFQ. It is for awarness and feedback. Please see the revised draft RFQ. | |
| 10 | May the government tell us how we can submit a quote if we do not have access to e-Buy for the relevant SINs, but are in the process of obtaining GSA approval for a few product lines? | 1.12 | 1.12 – Submission of Request for Quotation | Network Runners’ OEM products cover innovative technologies and are pending GSA approval. | We would like to submit our offer via regular e-mail instead of via e-Buy. | All eligible GSA IT 70 Schedule holders with the applicable SINS are eligible to submit a quote on the formal RFQ. A GSA IT 70 Schedule contract is required to participate in this acquisition. Visit GSA Vendor Support center for guidenace on obtaining a GSA Schedule Contract. https://vsc.gsa.gov | |
| 11 | Will the government consider an exception to RFQ submission via GSA eBuy | 1.12 | 1.12 | Offer anticipates the addition of SIN 132.8 for Motorola and SIN 132-40 for Amazon Web Services (AWS). | In anticipation of this requirement, Offeror requested LOS; AWS in final review; Motorola anticipated prior to release of formal RFP | Only GSA IT 70 Schedule holders are eligible to submit a quote on the formal RFQ. Quotes submissions will only be accepted through GSA e-buy, the offical portal for GSA Schedule procurements. | |
| 13 | If Offeror is not able to respond to the DRAFT RFQ does that exclude Offeror from responding to the formal RFP? | 1.12 | 1.12 | It is not a requirement to respond to the draft RFQ(s) to be eligible for award. All eligible GSA IT 70 Schedule holders with the applicable SINS are eligible to submit a quote to the formal RFQ. | |||
| 14 | If Offeror is unable to respond to the draft RFQ does that exclude Offeror from responding to the formal RFP? | 1.12 | 1.12 | It is not a requirement to respond to the draft RFQ(s) to be eligible for award. All eligible GSA IT 70 Schedule holders with the applicable SINS are eligible to submit a quote to the formal RFQ. | |||
| 16 | This section states that this is follow-on to the First Generation Information Technology (1GIT) BPAs, is this the follow-on to the NETCENT 2 contract? | 2.1 | Section 2.00- BACKGROUND 2.1 | N/A | N/A | This BPA is a follow-on to GSA's first generation IT BPA solution issued out of the National Information Technology Commodity Program. It is also the path that the US Air Force has elected to be a replacement vehicle for their current NETCENTS-2 Products IDIQ contract which expires in Nov 2019. | |
| 17 | It appears this BPA would establish essentially a GSA Schedule within a GSA Schedule contract. Majority of the Schedule 70 SIN's will be available through this BPA. Any eligible ordering activity of a Schedule 70 contract can purchase against this BPA. Many of the IT products/support available to the Schedule 70 contract will be available through this BPA. However, the BPA requires additional discounting from already discounted GSA schedule prices, yet places additional burdens and costs on contract holders (e.g. asset tagging, order tracking, delivery requirements, etc.). Because customers already realize additional discounts from GSA schedule prices through competition at the order level, what value would customers expect from this BPA other than greater discounts? | 4 | 4 | The main initiative for establishing this BPA was to replace the Air Force's NETCENTS-2 Products IDIQ. Rather than making this BPA open to all eligible ordering activities, keep the framework of the NETCENTS-2 Products IDIQ intact; limiting eligible customers to Air Force customers only with exceptions from other DOD customers if the purchase is in support of an Air Force initiative. In addition, by limiting the customer scope, it would then ease Industry push back on certain requirements since they would be specific to the BPA customers. | This BPA will be available for all federal, state, local, regional and tribal agencies via the cooperative purchase agreement. The Air Force is the only mandatory use agency because it is a replacement vehicle of the current NETCENTS 2 Products IDIQ. This vehicle supports OMB mandate for agencies to consider using existing vehicles instead of creating their own vehicles. Additional benefits of the BPA is one centrally managed vehicle. In regards to discounts, the published GSA Schedule price is a ceiling price, in most cases vendors offer an additional discount once an actual requirement/order is issued. Vendors will have to make a business decision on how much they choose to discount their prices to be competitive for the award of a 2GIT BPA. | ||
| 18 | If the all same eligible ordering activities can purchase through this BPA, who is left to buy off the contractor's GSA Schedule contract? | 4 | 4 | A BPA should be limited to an agency, a group of agencies who have a common mission, or a specific technology category/brand. Recommend that GSA limits the scope of customers who can utilize this BPA; similar to how NETCENTS-2 Products is currently limited to Air Force and other DOD agencies supporting an Air Force mission. | This BPA will be available for all federal, state, local, regional and tribal agencies via the cooperative purchase agreement. The Air Force is the only mandatory use agency because it is a replacement for the current NETCENTS 2 IT Products IDIQ. This vehicle supports OMB mandate for agencies to consider using existing vehicles instead of creating their own vehicles. Agencies will still have the option to purchase from GSA IT Schedule directly. | ||
| 19 | Has the contracting office considered expanding the scope of OEMs requested for each BPA LIN in the Market Basket? | 4 | Section 4.0 | ||||
| Attachment B | Although COTS Software is listed across the BPA LINs, virtually no COTS Software Publishers are listed in the Market Basket – Attachment B. DLT believes that the scope of the 2GIT BPA should focus on the whole ecosystem of hardware and software tools that support the modern enterprise. | DLT recommends the inclusion of IT Operations Management and Cybersecurity publishers across all BPA LINs. |
In the End User Category, DLT would also recommend, at a minimum, the inclusion of:
o Desktop management and patch tools o User Applications (i.e. data visualization, architectural/engineering software, learning management)
| o User Administration and Support (Tier I, CSS, etc.) | The market basket is being updated. While not all software products will be listed in the market basket, it should be understood that the government intends for industry to provide their team's entire offering of hardware and software products under IT Schedule 70 Special Item Number 132-8, 132-12, 132-32, 132-33 and, 132-34 to support the BPA. | |
| 20 | Since LIN-1, LIN-2, and LIN-3 includes COTS Software, will the Prime Offeror under LIN-1, LIN-2, and LIN-3 be expected to have all the following SINs: |
132-8, 132-12, 132-32, 132-33, 132-34, 132-40, and 70-500?
| Or, how does the Government expect the SINs to be covered at BPA level? | 4 | RFQ Section |
| 4.0 | The Government states: |
“GSA is preparing to establish a set of government-wide multiple award BPA.... to include:
Products:
132-3 Purchase of New Equipment 132-12 Maintenance of Equipment, Repair Services and/or Repair/Spare Parts Software 132-32 Term Software License 132-33 Perpetual Software License 132-34 Maintenance of Software as a Service Other 132-40 Cloud Computing Services 70-500 Order Level Material SIN”
It is unclear which SIN the Prime Offeror is required to have to bid on which LIN. Recommend the Government provide a specific mapping of required SINs for each LIN.
| Also recommend providing specific clarification of how the Government expects the SINs to be covered at the BPA level since it appears that in the Prime/Sub relationship, the Subcontractor must bid under the Prime’s SINs. | GSA's objective is to provide a total solution to cover all four BPA LINs. The teaming partners are responsible for the make up of their teams, which partner is the lead, and which SINs they will offer under the BPA. | ||||
| 21 | XXXXXXXXX Company does not have any of the SINS that are required by the time the RFQ is released we may have one of the SINS, since we’re actively pursuing 132-40 with Amazon, but it won’t be approved by GSA by Nov 7th can we still submit DRAFT RFQ | 4 | 4.0 Scope | You are not required to have the SINs on your GSA schedule contract at the time of closing of the draft RFQ. |
All eligible GSA IT 70 Schedule holders with the applicable SINS are eligible to submit a quote on the formal RFQ. A GSA IT 70 Schedule contract is required to participate in this acquisition.
Per section 1.1 "All quoted items must be made available on the GSA Schedule contract by the date and time of the quote submission OR a modification requesting the addition of the subcategories must have been submitted to the Schedule Contracting Officer by the date and time of quote submittal. GSA will verify the date and time of modification submission with the Schedule Contracting Officer."
Visit GSA Vendor Support center for guidance on obtaining a GSA Schedule Contract. https://vsc.gsa.gov
NOTE: SIN 132-40 was removed from this requirement
| 22 | How does the contracting office intend to include cloud products in the BPA? Will IaaS, PaaS, and/or SaaS be in scope? | 4 | Section 4.0 | Section 4.0 lists the 132-40 Cloud SIN, but no other mention is made of how cloud products will be procured. | Recommend additional clarification from the contracting office. | The market basket is being updated. Cloud will not be part of the 2GIT solution at this time. It was considered but decided out of scope for a products BPA. |
| 23 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.1.2 | 5.1.2 | Agencies as well as state and local customers may have different Cybersecurity guidelines. It would be next to impossible for OEM's/BPA Primes to ensure that its products meet these requirements when adding to the BPA catalog. In addition, as this BPA is for COTS, this requirement may cause potential modifications of these COTS products. It is recommended that the buying customer make this a specific requirement for its specific need at the time of quote. | Reference para. 5.1.2 of Draft RFQ - "... contractor shall ensure that all applicable Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and enabled products comply with ordering agency Cybersecurity guidelines." | |
| 24 | 5.1.2 Cybersecurity Technical Considerations. States “The contractor shall ensure that all applicable Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and enabled products comply with ordering agency Cybersecurity guidelines.” Since the Contractors eligible GSA products are to be added to the BPA contract is this requirement on the BPA Catalog Level or at task order level? | 5.1.2 | 5.1.2 Cybersecurity Technical Considerations | The requirement for this item is at the order level RFQ. The ordering contracting office will decide if they need it for their requirement. | ||
| 25 | Will the DFARS referenced in this section be applicable to all orders or where applicable? The language, as currently written, is not clear. | 5.1.3 | 5.1.3 | DFARS should only apply to DOD orders, where applicable. We request that the language in this section is updated to make this clear. | The requirement for this item is at the order level RFQ. The ordering contracting office will decide if they need it for their requirement. | |
| 26 | Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.239.7017 Notice of Supply Chain Risk does this DFARS apply to BPA Line Number 4? | 5.1.3 | 5.1.3 | Yes for BPA Line Item Number 4 and all of the BPA Line Item Numbers | ||
| 27 | DFARS 252.239-7018 Supply Chain Risk does this DFARS apply to BPA Line Item Number 4? | 5.1.3 | 5.1.3 | |||
| 28 | 5.1.3.1 | 5.1.3.1 | Include CMMI certification necessary | CMMI has been included in the Experience Factor. | ||
| 30 | Will GSA consider removing or clarifying the last sentence of this section? | 5.1.5 | 5.1.5 | We would offer manufacturer products that are available to us through Letters of Supply and meet GSA and BPA requirements. | Revised. See new edits. | |
| 31 | What is the government expectation for a contractor to monitor all OEMs products and software updates and business practice if they choose to offer an update at “no charge” to a customer we have no knowledge? | 5.1.5 | 5.1.5 Technical Refresh. | It is industry practice for end-users/customers to inquire through the OEMs website for any updates for specific models and under their specific term and conditions of the update. Software updates and other component updates are in most cases provided through a OEM extended warranty that is purchased by the customer (example: Cisco SmartNet) | Recommend removing "If such updates are available to other customers without charge, then they shall also be made available to the Government without additional charge" | It is not the Government's expectation for resellers to monitor OEM for product updates. Resellers are expected to provide customer support/assistance resolving any issues with OEM related to maintenance/sustainment/replacement issues with Product. See new edits. |
| 32 | What is the government expectation for a contractor to monitor all OEMs products and software updates and business practice if they choose to offer an update at “no charge” to a customer we have no knowledge? | 5.1.5 | 5.1.5 Technical Refresh. | It is industry practice for end-users/customers to inquire through the OEMs website for any updates for specific models and under their specific term and conditions of the update. Software updates and other component updates are in most cases provided through a OEM extended warranty that is purchased by the customer (example: Cisco SmartNet) | Recommend removing "If such updates are available to other customers without charge, then they shall also be made available to the Government without additional charge" | It is not the Government's expectation for resellers to monitor OEM for product updates. Resellers are expected to provide customer support/assistance resolving any issues with OEM related to maintenance/sustainment/replacement issues with Product. See new edits. |
| 33 | Is there a scenario where a delivery order quote with only non-TAA items will be allowed? | 5.1.6 | 5.1.6 | GSA Schedules require all items be TAA. In FAR 52.225-5, there are procedures for identifying non-TAA products. | Please clarify if all items need to be TAA, whether through Open Market or OLM. If so, what are the rules/procedures for bidding non-TAA items? | The market basket has been updated. All items under the BPA shall be TAA compliant. Ordering agencies may purchase Open Market items in accordance with FAR 8.402(f) and if applicable under the OLM SIN 70-500. |
| 34 | N/A | 5.1.6 | 5.1.6 Products | In this section it states, “In accordance with FAR 52.225-5, the Trade Agreements Certificate at FAR 52.225-6 shall be provided as requested by the Ordering Contracting Officer….” | As all items on GSA schedule are required to be TAA compliant, we believe this requirement for a Trade Agreement Certificate is unnecessary and should be deleted. | The requirement for a trade agreement certificate has been removed |
| 35 | At what point does an Offeror need to be holding the minimum required certification? At time of responding to the RFP? At time of award? Or if the Offeror is in the process of obtaining such certification, will that be acceptable? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 | Minimum certifications should be held by the Offeror prior to GSA making awards. | Certification is required to be complete at time of quote submission. GSA will look for evidence of the certification during the evaluation of the quote submission. Certification was and is a current requirement of the NETCENTS 2 Products IDIQ. | |
| 36 | Can we be undergoing the certification process at time of submission or must we already have the certification for submission? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 Quality Certification | The expected certification time for ISO 9001:2015 is 6 months. | Allow submitters a timeline to achieve the required certification, greater than 6 months from today. This requirement should allow for interested bidders the opportunity to achieve the prerequisites of the contract allowing for maximum participation. | Certification is required to be complete at time of quote submission. GSA will look for evidence of the certification during the evaluation of the quote submission. Certification was and is a current requirement of the NETCENTS 2 Products IDIQ. |
| 37 | Does Self Certification of the QMS |
to ISO 9001:2008 meet the
| requirements under 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 | Self certification is not acceptable. See revised language in the RFQ. | ||||
| 38 | What is the reason that GSA is asking for the 2008 instead of vs the current 2015 certification? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 Quality Certification | N/A | We recommend the government require ISO 9001:2015 since it is the latest standard. | Revised to state, "latest revision of... " | |
| 39 | If the Prime offeror is not ISO certified and partners with another company that is ISO certified, can the Prime offeror utilize the partner’s ISO certification to satisfy the requirements for ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 20000 standards of the BPA RFQ? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 | All members of a CTA are required to have the ISO 9001 certification. | |||
| 40 | Would the Contracting Office consider removing the ISO certification requirement for contract holders? | 5.1.7 | Section 5.1.7 | GSA-based BPAs typically do not require ISO certification, and the GSA contract holders for a significant number of the in-scope OEMs do not hold the required certification. | To enable the best value for the government customer, we recommend removing the ISO certification requirement. | ISO 9001 is required for all product related requirements. All members of a CTA are required to have the ISO 9001 certification. | |
| 41 | Why are you requiring ISO 9001:2008 Certification? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 | GSA Schedules do not require ISO certification, and the USAF did not require ISO Certification as part of its CCS-2 BPA’s. | Remove the requirement for ISO 9001:2008 as being overly restrictive to potential bidders. | Specific reference to 9001:2008 removed, however the certification requirement is still valid. Current language states certification to the latest version | |
| 42 | 5.1.7 Quality Certification. The contractors shall be ISO 9001:2008 (or higher), or ISO/IEC 20000 (or higher) certified for the entire performance period of the contract, inclusive of options. This certification must be held at the organizational level of the legal entity performing the contract. Can the BPA be held by a parent company’s wholly-owned subsidiary if the ISO certifications are held by the parent company? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7 Quality Certification | ISO 9001 is required for all product related requirements. All members of a CTA are required to have the ISO 9001 certification. | |||
| 43 | What is the Government’s rationale in requiring quality certifications for what has historically been a contract to buy HW/SW? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7. Quality Certification | These certifications are usually most applicable to service delivery organizations. | ISO 9001 is required and is included in the current NETCENTS2 Products IDIQ. | ||
| 44 | As this level of certification is time consuming and expensive to pursue, would the Government consider a threshold of having companies achieve certification within 8 months of award or some similar metric? | 5.1.7 | 5.1.7. Quality Certification | Having that requirement for the life of the contract may limit competition and prevent the Government from accessing valuable solutions. | ISO 9001 is required for all product related requirements. All members of a CTA are required to have the ISO 9001 certification. | ||
| 50 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.1.9 | 5.1.9 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where this requirement may be included within the customer's delivery order. Rather, the Offeror should be aware of any and all requirements from the customer prior to issuing a quote so it can determine if it can meet such requirements or not. | The language has been revised to reflect as specified by the ordering office at the RFQ Level. | ||
| 51 | How will the customers notify the contractor during the bidding process of this requirement? Will the customers notify the contractor during the bidding process of this requirement? | 5.1.9 | 5.1.9 TEMPEST Requirements | This must be part of the RFQ process and not after award. | The government must request this at time of RFQ not at time of award. | The language has been revised to reflect as specified by the ordering office at the RFQ Level. | |
| 52 | How will the customers notify the contractor during the bidding process of this requirement? Will the customers notify the contractor during the bidding process of this requirement? | 5.1.9 | 5.1.9 TEMPEST Requirements | This must be part of the RFQ process and not after award. | The government must request this at time of RFQ not at time of award. | The language has been revised to reflect as specified by the ordering office at the RFQ Level. | |
| 53 | Is this requirement for all orders for any items purchased against this BPA? | 5.2.2 | 5.2.2 | Recommend to limiting this requirement to items that are physically shipped OCONUS. | Please provide additional information on the question. GSA is looking for the capability to track orders in support of SCRM. | ||
| 54 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.2.1 | 5.2.2.1 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where it is implied that this is a requirement for all DOD orders and may be a requirement as requested by the customer for non-DOD. | See revised RFQ language | ||
| 55 | On the Special Asset Tracking Requirement: a. What type of proof does the Government expect for the Special Asset Tracking requirement? b. Must the proof come from the Prime Offeror or can it come from the bidding team, e.g. subcontractor? c. Does the Government expect the team to have proof for all three contract lines or will the Government have an increasing point value for each additional proof beyond the first contract? | 5.2.2.1 | RFP Section 5.2.2.1 Attachment A | Attachment A list 3 contracts for Special Asset Tracking Requirement. It is unclear whether the Government expects: a. This experience to come from the Prime Offeror or the team; b. Whether all 3 contracts are required; c. How the point value will be assessed; d. Whether these must be the same contracts as those cited under the previous line items of Relevant Experience. | 1. Recommend the Government ask for a copy of the contract with the specific language requiring order tracking to be submitted as part of the proposal. 2. Recommend that at least one of the contact references itself comes from the Prime Offeror to validate the experience. 3. Recommend that the Government allow small business Prime Offerors to include team experience for this requirement to increase competition at the BPA level. 4. Recommend the Government use an increasing point value (in Attachment A) for each contract cited as experience with additional point value if the experience is from the Prime Offeror itself. | A. Acceptable evidence will be spelled out in the RFQ at the order level. |
B. Proof comes from contractor supplying/fulfiliing the order.
C. The instruction has been revised, please review.
| 56 | Is it the expectation of the government that the services require in sections 5.2.2.1 – 5.2.2.3 Asset, Software and RFID be provided to the government a no incremental price to the BPA LIN price? | 5.2.2.1. | 5.2.2.1. Special Asset Tagging, 5.2.2.2 Radio Frequency Identification (RFID). 5.2.2.3. Software Tagging | Price should be inclusive of what it takes to deliver the product to customer and fulfill the requirements. | ||
| 57 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.2.2 | 5.2.2.2 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where this requirement may be included within the customer's delivery order. Rather, the Offeror should be aware of any and all requirements from the customer prior to issuing a quote so it can determine if it can meet such requirements or not. | The language at 5.2.2.2 has been revised to state, "When required and defined by the ordering activity at the RFQ stage, the contractor shall provide RFID tagging." | |
| 58 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.2.3 | 5.2.2.3 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where this requirement may be included within the customer's delivery order. Rather, the Offeror should be aware of any and all requirements from the customer prior to issuing a quote so it can determine if it can meet such requirements or not. | The language at 5.2.2.3 has been revised to state, "When required and defined by the ordering activity at the RFQ stage, commercial off-the-shelf software items shall support International Standard for Software Tagging and Identification, ISO/IEC 19770-2, Software Tags when designated as mandatory by the standard." | |
| 59 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.3 | 5.2.3 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where this requirement may be included within the customer's delivery order. Rather, the Offeror should be aware of any and all requirements from the customer prior to issuing a quote so it can determine if it can meet such requirements or not. | Duplicate from Question 58 | |
| 60 | Installation: Will the government sponsor the contractor awardees for a facility clearance investigation upon BPA award? | 5.2.3 | 5.2.3 | Sponsorship for a facility clearance |
is a pre-requirement to enable an organization to bid on projects that require access to secure areas. There is no avenue to initiate an organizational background check without the contract
| already in place, resulting in a catch 22. | Have the contracting officer managing the BPA sponsor awardees for a facility clearance; enabling the organization to initiate a background investigation; maximizing competition and providing more quality options for the Government. | No. Facility Clearance Level is a business decision of the contractor. | |||||
| 61 | Will offerors be required to hold a Top-Secret facility clearance to be eligible for a BPA award? | 5.2.3 | 5.2.3 | If the BPA-level competition does not take offerors’ facility clearances into account, it could leave the Government with little to no options for delivery orders requiring a DD 254 if many of the winners do not have a facility clearance. | A DD 254 should be required at the BPA level to avoid issues post-award. | Facility Clearance is not required at the BPA level. Ordering actitives may request a specific FCL at the order level during the RFQ stage. Facility Clearnace is part of the possible points under the Experience Factor. | |
| 62 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.4 | 5.2.4 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where this extended warranty requirement may be included within the customer's delivery order. Rather, the Offeror should be aware of any and all requirements from the customer prior to issuing a quote so it can determine if it can meet such requirements or not. | The language at 5.2.4 has been revised to state, "The contractors shall provide any OEM pass through warranty and standard commercial warranties applicable to the products being purchased at no cost. Additionally, extended warranties may be purchased as defined in each delivery order by the ordering agency at the RFQ stage." | ||
| 63 | N/A | 5.2.4 and 10.9 | 5.2.4 Warranty; and 10.9 Warranty | In this section it states: “The contractor shall provide any OEM pass through warranty and standard commercial warranties applicable to the product being purchase at no cost.” | We recommend the Government add the following verbiage to the end the sentence “as included in the standard warranty of the product.” There also appears to be redundancy as warranty is also mentioned in Section 10.9. We would appreciate clarification on which warranty section applies to this contract. | See revised RFQ language | |
| 64 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.5 | 5.2.5 | Recommend language to change so that the OEM's standard support will apply. In addition, it should be requested by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, it states "as required by the customer's delivery order." | The language at 5.2.5 has been revised to state "The contractors shall provide live technical support, as required by the ordering activities’ RFQ, during the warranty period to assist in isolating, identifying, and repairing software and hardware failures, or to act as liaison with the manufacturer in the event that the customer requires assistance in contacting or dealing with the manufacturer." | ||
| 65 | Will GSA consider making this requirement at the request of a buying customer at the quote level versus the BPA level? | 5.2.6 | 5.2.6 | Recommend to change the language so that it reads this this requirement be made by the customer at the time of quote. Currently, the language is written where this requirement may be included within the customer's delivery order. Rather, the Offeror should be aware of any and all requirements from the customer prior to issuing a quote so it can determine if it can meet such requirements or not. | The language at 5.2.5 has been revised to state "The contractors shall provide live technical support, as required by the ordering activities’ RFQ, during the warranty period to assist in isolating, identifying, and repairing software and hardware failures, or to act as liaison with the manufacturer in the event that the customer requires assistance in contacting or dealing with the manufacturer." | ||
| 66 | The government states “contractors shall provide associated maintenance and upgrades to include spares/parts and emergency support worldwide, during the warranty period”. Can the government confirm this section is referring to the OEMs pass through warranty and standard commercial warranties applicable to the products being purchased at no cost in section 5.2.4? | 5.2.6 | 5.2.6 Product Maintenance | Not all OEMs have this is their standard warranty. Anything past standard warranty (in most cases 90 days) would be provided though a OEM procured extended warranty/maintenance agreement. | Recommend the government remove 5.2.6 since standard warranty is covered in 5.2.4. or make 5.2.6 optional maintenance upgrade | See revised RFQ language | |
| 67 | The government states “contractors shall provide associated maintenance and upgrades to include spares/parts and emergency support worldwide, during the warranty period”. Can the government confirm this section is referring to the OEMs pass through warranty and standard commercial warranties applicable to the products being purchased at no cost in section 5.2.4? | 5.2.6 | 5.2.6 Product Maintenance | Not all OEMs have this is their standard warranty. Anything past standard warranty (in most cases 90 days) would be provided though a OEM procured extended warranty/maintenance agreement. | Recommend the government remove 5.2.6 since standard warranty is covered in 5.2.4. or make 5.2.6 optional maintenance upgrade | Delete. duplicate from 66 | |
| 68 | Will the Government consider a 5-year base period and a 5-year optional period of performance? | 6 | RFQ Section 6.0 | The Government States: “The BPA period of performance will consist of one (1) base period of twelve (12) months and four (4) option periods of twelve (12) months. BPA reviews will be completed annually before exercising the option periods to determine if exercising the option is in the best interest of the Government.” Longer performance periods provide administrative savings to both the Government and the vendor, which in turn can be passed through to the end customer. | Recommend the Government consider extending the period of performance to a 5-year base period and one 5-year optional period. This would be consistent with other GSA GWACs and multiple award IDIQs, such as the OASIS program, which are based on GSA Schedules like 2GIT will be. | At this time the decision has been made to keep the performance period at 5 years (1 base period and 4 one year options) | |
| 69 | Will OEM EULA's that have been incorporated into an Offeror's GSA Schedule contract be applicable to this BPA? | 10 | 10 | GSA Schedule contract holders already go through an extensive process with GSA and GSA Legal to have OEM EULA's and other terms and conditions reviewed and eventually approved. These terms are incorporated into that schedule contract holder's GSA contract, and therefore, should also apply to any purchases against this BPA. | Yes, EULA at the GSA Schedule level will flow down to the BPA. | ||
| 70 | Can you clarify the role of CTA’s (Contractor Teaming Arrangements)? | 10.1 | 10.1 | At the time that responses to the BPA are being submitted, it is impossible to know who will ultimately hold a BPA and who won’t hold a BPA, so how are bidders to use CTA’s as part of their bid? This appears to be contract to section 15.2 | Certain Manufacturers / OEMs do not provide individual resellers with LOS support for GSA MAS, but prefer that GSA Schedule Holders utilize CTA Agreements with distributors (or companies acting as a distributor), such as Ingram Micro/Promark, Carahsoft, DLT Solutions, and others. | GSA has revised the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. Read the CTA link in the RFQ for GSA's definition of CTAs. | |
| 71 | Why are you restricting CTA’s to only being among BPA Holders? | 10.1 | 10.1 | As part of a total solution, a BPA Holder may be required to provide products from an OEM that was not considered in the original competition, and that OEM may have chosen to work with companies holding GSA Schedules that do not hold the BPA, thereby precluding the end user (USAF/FED) from procuring the required products through this suite of BPAs. | Remove the restriction that CTA’s can only be executed with other BPA holders as being overly restrictive to providing future solutions to the USAF and FED Customers. No such restrictions exist within SEWP or CHESS when utilizing a PRIME/SUB relationship. | GSA has revised the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. | |
| 72 | Please clarify “Prime offerors may utilize Subcontracting arrangements as part of their total solution; however, all quoted sub-categories shall be from the Prime’s GSA Schedules contract.” what this requirement means. | 10.1 | 10.1 | We do not understand the term “all quoted sub-categories shall be from the Prime’s GSA Schedules contract”. | This statement is confusing, and likely needs more explanation. | The following language has been removed from the RFQ. |
"however, all quoted sub-categories shall be from the Prime’s GSA Schedules contract"
| 73 | Please clarify “A CTA forms a direct contractual relationship (“privity of contract”) between each CTA vendor and the ordering agency, which means that each vendor must be eligible on its own to compete for orders under the BPA. A BPA holder attempting to “team” with a non-BPA holder would amount to making the non-BPA holder a direct party to a BPA it was not selected to be a part of and/or did not compete for.” | 10.1 | 10.1 | We are confused about the reference to “Privity of Contract” for multiple entities as it relates to CTA’s. This has never been the case in the past, as Delivery Orders are issued against a SINGLE GSA Schedule, even when CTA’s are being used. | This statement is confusing, and likely needs more explanation. | GSA has revised the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. Read the CTA link in the RFQ for GSA's definition of CTAs. |
| 74 | Will the government reconsider to allow BPA level CTA's in addition to the order level CTA's so that respondee's will be able to provide a total solution for one, multiple, or all LINs which would resolve the Letter of Supply concern whereby all items in the market basket must be on the the contractor's GSA? | 10.1 | 10.1 | It would be recommended for the government to allow for potential primes to be able to establish CTA's at the BPA level in order to provide a full and compliant response to the Government. This will alliviate the need for BPA primes to have a LOS for all items contained within the market basket. | GSA has changed the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. | |
| 75 | Concern #2: Contracting Teaming Arrangements (CTAs) | 10.1 | 10.1 | Reference: 10.10 Contractor Teaming Arrangements will be permitted at the individual task orders and not the establishment of the Blanket Purchase Agreement. Depending on the complexity of a particular requirement, the BPA holder has the option to form a Contracting |
Teaming Arrangement (CTA) with another BPA holder that offers the remaining products or services so that they may compete for the order as a team. This is a solution that benefits BPA holders and ordering activities alike, as it increases competition and allows for innovative, multivendor selections. Therefore BPA holders are encourage to utilize the flexibility offered by CTA’s whenever necessary and appropriate.
In forming a CTA for this purpose, it is important to note that a BPA holder cannot team with a non BPA holder (i.e., an FSS contractor not “awarded” under the BPA). A CTA forms a direct contractual relationship (“privity of contract”) between each CTA vendor and the ordering agency, which means that each vendor must be eligible on its own to compete for orders under the BPA. A BPA holder attempting to “team” with a non-BPA holder would amount to making the non-BPA holder a direct party to a BPA it was not selected to be a part of and/or did not compete for.
Subcontracting is allowed at the BPA level and task order level in accordance with the contractor’s GSA Schedule Contract. If used, offerors shall identify Prime Contractor/Subcontractor arrangements in their quote. If a prime contractor-subcontractor arrangement is to be used, the offeror must clearly explain the portion of effort to be performed by each contractor. Prime offerors may utilize Subcontracting arrangements as part of their total solution; however, all quoted sub-categories shall be from the Prime’s GSA Schedules contract.
Comment / Question: For a Tier 1 OEM to fully participate in this BPA, it would require establishing dozens, if not hundreds, of CTAs with OEMs for individual peripherals. This would be a tremendous administrative burden, which would drive up prices and compliance risk.
| To be a full participant in this RFQ, Tier 1 OEMs would likely have to team with distributors who have a Letter of Supply with many peripheral OEMs. However, a distributor may be reluctant to enter into a CTA with a Tier 1 OEM because there is little incentive for them to do so. Therefore, the draft RFQ as written is potentially restricting competition by placing Tier 1 OEMs at a disadvantage. | GSA has revised the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. Read the CTA link in the RFQ for GSA's definition of CTAs. | ||||||
| 76 | Are CTA's allowed at the BPA Level? If not, then why is there a column in Attachment B - Market Basket asking if the product is available via CTA with LOS? | 10.1 | RFQ 10.10 BPA Terms and Conditions B.15.2 Price, page 30 | (10.10) Contractor Teaming Arrangements will be permitted at the individual task orders and not the establishment of the Blanket Purchase Agreement. Depending on the complexity of a particular requirement, the BPA holder has the option to form a Contracting Teaming Arrangement (CTA) with another BPA holder that offers the remaining products or services so that they may compete for the order as a team. (15.2) For the purpose of market research, vendors are requested to complete the (Attachment B - Market Basket) spreadsheet. 1. Column A: Quoted OEM: List the OEM you can provide for the product description listed in Columns E, F & G. (Brand name or equal) 2. Column B: Quoted Mfr. Part#: List the Manufacturer's part number for the product you are providing for the product description listed in Columns E, F & G. 3. Column C: (Letter of Supply) LOS: Yes or No: Annotate yes or no if you have a Letter of Supply that authorizes your company to carry/list the product on your GSA IT Schedule 70 contract. 4. Column D: (Contractor Teaming Arrangement) CTA with a LOS: Identify the company you intend on teaming with (that has this item on their GSA IT Schedule 70 contract) You may list more than one by adding a line to the spreadsheet. NOTE: Teaming is at the order level only. (See section 10.10) | If CTAs are only at the task order level and can only be with other BPA holders, how should an offeror complete Column D at this time? | GSA has changed the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. | |
| 77 | It is stated here that Contractor Teaming Arrangements will be permitted at the individual task order level and not for the establishment of the BPA. Further, it is stated that CTA's that are formed at the individual task order level will only be permitted between BPA holders. Perhaps we are mis-interpreting this, but it would seem that this would severely limit the breadth of products that the end users of the BPA's would have access to post-award. For example, there are some manufacturers who do not issue Letters of Supply to resellers and instead choose to utilize an aggregator to control their GSA pricing and manage their schedule. Therefore, theoretically, no reseller could bid these products on their BPA proposal response. So it stands to reason that if no reseller could bid these products initially in their BPA proposal response, then no contract that is awarded could include these products. And since CTA's post-award could only be established between BPA awardees, access to these products via the BPA's would be impossible unless the manufacturer changed their policies. Please verify if our understanding is correct or if we are mis-interpreting this. | 10.1 | 10.1 | Please provide clarification. | Recommend allowing Teaming Agreements for establishment of BPA's and not just at the task order level. | The RFQ has been changed with revised language on CTAs, the Market Basket makeup and the evaluation process. Please review the RFQ. | |
| 78 | Will the Government consider allowing CTA agreements at the BPA level for small business who bid as the Prime? | 10.1 | RFQ Section 10.10 | The Government states: “Contractor Teaming Arrangements will be permitted at the individual task orders and not the establishment of the Blanket Purchase Agreement.” Currently large OEMs have provided only one or a very small numbers of letters of supply (LOS) on the GSA Schedule programs. Small businesses like IW, an authorized reseller with up to Titanium-level partnerships with OEMs, are still unable to obtain a LOS from the OEMs. | Recommend the Government reduce the LOS requirement, allowing small business bidders to enter into CTA agreements at the BPA level. This will ensure increased small business Prime participation, therefore increasing the Government’s probability of meeting its small business Prime goals. | GSA has changed the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. | |
| 79 | If Offerors are only able to form a CTA at the task order level with another BPA holder for the purpose of ensuring adequate supply of products and services – while some of the OEMs are only issuing a LOS to a single entity as their GSA Sales Representative – how will the Government ensure a competitive environment on the BPA? | 10.1 | RFQ Section 10.10 | The Government states: “Contractor Teaming Arrangements will be permitted at the individual task orders and not the establishment of the blanket Purchase Agreement. Depending on the complexity of a particular requirement, the BPA holder has the option to form a Contracting Teaming Arrangement (CTA) with another BPA holder that offers the remaining products or services so that they may compete for the order as a team.” The combination of a limited number of LOS from OEMs to their GSA Schedule Representatives, and the requirement for establishing a CTA at the Task Order only, has the potential to create a virtual monopoly for specific products. Without pre-established CTAs at the BPA level, the ability to respond quickly to task orders will be significantly reduced. | Recommend the Government allow CTAs at the BPA level and Prime/Subcontractor relationships with a non-BPA holder at the task order level to allow non-GSA Schedule items to be proposed under SIN 70 500 Order Level Material. This will increase the level of competition at both the BPA and at the Task Order levels. | GSA has changed the solicitation to allow CTAs at the BPA level. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.