50310218R0005_AMD0017_Attachment_13_-_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ONE OIT
- Solicitation number
- 503102-18-R-0005
- Issued by
-
Securities and Exchange Commission
About this file
50310218R0005_AMD0017_Attachment 13 - Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 70 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Section A
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section A | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers | ||
| 1 | Executive Summary | 3 and other sections | The FedBizOpps posting on October 26 regarding the SEC One OIT solicitation stated that the on-ramp would allow contractors to propose by "individual channel". The RFQ amendment 15 states that offerors must "adequately represent all 7 channels" or would "not be considered responsive". The SEC would be best served by allowing offerors to bid across a limited numnber of channels so they can obtain the prime contractors that are experts in the appropriate channels. Would SEC adjust the solicitation to allow offerors to bid on a minimum of 3 channels so SEC can award by "individual channels", as per the government's strategy in October? | The SEC anticipates future on-ramp events will allow for more channel-specific solicitations but the current on-ramp follows the original solicitation in that it requires offerors to cover all 7 Service Channels. | ||
| 2 | At what intervals does the government anticipate offering the On Ramp opportunity? | The decision to conduct on-ramp events will depend on the SEC's needs at the time. No set intervals are anticipated. | ||||
| 3 | Will the government allow companies who are currently subcontractors at SEC (but NOT on OneOIT) to cite that past performance, subject to the expiration requirements as stated in the Statement of Work? | The requirements for subcontractor experience are outlined in the on-ramp solicitation. There is no prohibition on using prior SEC experience, so long as applicable requirements are met. | ||||
| 4 | A | 4 | Section A states "Previously submitted documents may be resubmitted." Assuming documents comply with the requirements listed (i.e., timeframe, revision changes), does this mean offerors do not need to obtain signatures from contracting officers on PPQs that were submitted previously? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. | ||
| 5 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 2 | 2 | We understand that government has confirmed that previously submitted documents may be resubmitted if they comply with the RFP istructions. However, please confirm if we need to get previously submitted Attachment 16 -Relevant Experience Project Template, and Attachment 17- Past Performance Relevant Experience Form (Document | ||
| Verification) needs to be re-signed by CO/COR? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. | |||||
| 6 | 5.1.2 | 11 | Work Category states the last point as "other/future platforms" - Please identify the "other future platforms" and if they contribute points (and how many) to the solicitation? | The other/future platforms have not yet been identified. Points are allocated as listed in the Self Scoring Worksheet. | ||
| 7 | 5.3.2 | 13 | Work Category states the last point as " Support of SEC Cloud initiatives and projects by providing Cloud services; to include associated design, engineering implementation, management and support." May we leverage similar cloud experience from other agencies or must our experience be SEC specific? | Yes. | ||
| 8 | Executive Summary | 1 | 3 | Where and how do the Offerors list the socio-economic designations? Is there an attachment for us to list them to make it easy for the SEC to validate? | Please list the socio-economic designations in the Cover Letter. | |
| 9 | Executive Summary | 2 | 4 | The RFP states that contractors who submitted a proposal in response to the original solicitation can resubmit documents if they comply with the conditions, does this apply to subcontractor LOC's? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. | |
| 10 | Executive Summary | 2 | 4 | The RFP states that contractors who submitted a proposal in response to the original solicitation can resubmit documents if they comply with the conditions, does this apply to past performance questionnaires? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. | |
| 11 | Executive Summary | 2 | 4 | The RFP states that contractors who submitted a proposal in response to the original solicitation can resubmit documents if they comply with the conditions, does this apply to reps and certs? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. | |
| 12 | "A" |
and L.3.6 5
1 3
| 82 | Considering the holiday interruptions, critical people out of town, and the need to get documents and signatures from numerous sources (who may be out of town), will SEC consider a 2-week extension to the proposal due date? | The proposal due date is extended to 8 February 2019. | |||
| 13 | Executive Summary | 10th Paragraph | 4 | Reference: "Previously submitted documents may be resubmitted ..." |
| Can the Government confirm that it will accept the previously submitted "Attachment 17: Past Performance Relevant Experience Form (Document Verification)"? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. | |||||
| 14 | Executive Summary | 4 | 4 | In the Executive Summary it states previously submitted documents may be resubmitted. Does this only apply for completed contracts? For example If a contract is onoing and the value has increased, will the variance in the contract value make the form non-compliant? | Minor changes are acceptable as long as they are identified on the form. |
Section B
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section B | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers | |
| 1 | B.5 LABOR CATEGORY TYPES | 1 | 5 | Will the government provide labor category requirements in terms of Education and Years of Experience? | Pricing should assume the highest qualified employee within a given labor category, working in the highest paid area within the Continental US, on a highly complex requirement. No additional information on eductation or years of experience will be provided at this time. Those requirements may be specified at the task order level as necessary. |
Section C
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section C | Paragraph | Questions | Answers |
| C | 5.1.2 | The listing description of "Provide Platform Application Development Support Services" in the PWS includes such things as Project and Task Management, requirements gathering, etc. but these are not the same as what is listed on the self-scoring worksheet. The self-scoring worksheet seems to list the same items as under Operations and Maintenance Services. Can the government confirm that what is listed on the self-scoring worksheet (SC1, Platform Application Dev Support Services) is correct? | The scoring elements listed on the Self Scoring Worksheet are correct: 1. Service Channel 1, Heading "Platform Application Operations and Maintenance Support Services" refers to Section 5.1.1 "Platform Application Operations and Maintenance Support Services" of the Statement of Objectives (SOO) 2. Service Channel 1, Heading "Platform/Technology Specific Solutions Delivery Services:" a. Subheading "Operations and Maintenance Services" refers to O&M support services (see tasks listed under Section 5.1.1 of the SOO) for the specific platforms listed on the Self Scoring Worksheet. b. Subheading "Platform Application Development Support Services" on the Self Scoring Worksheet refers to Section 5.1.2 "Provide Platform Application Development Support Services of the SOO for the specific platforms listed on the Self Scoring Worksheet. |
| C | 5.2.2 | The listing description of System Development Life Cycle Support Services includes "Project and Task Management" but this item is not listed on the self-scoring worksheet. Can the government confirm that the self-scoring worksheet (SC2, System Development Life Cycle Support Services) is correct? | The Self Scoring Worksheet is correct |
| Section C | 1 | Will contracting officers outside of the SEC OIT be able to use this contracting vehicle? | No |
| C.5.2.1 | 1 | The Business Analysis and Requirements Services work category includes requirements gathering and analysis using "SEC tools and templates." Which (if any) software products are standard for SEC tools used for requirements gathering and analysis? | The Self Scoring Worksheets scoring element assigns points for "Requirements Gathering and Analysis" without reference to SEC-specific tools |
Section H
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section H | Paragraph | Questions | Answers |
| 42 | 5 | 1. Would the Government encourage a highly qualified small business offeror to submit for the restricted on-ramp if their size standard will change in CY2019? How frequently does the Government audit companies to evaluate current size status for this contract? | The Government cannot help make business decisions. However, the offeror will have to be a small business under the NAICS at time of IDIQ award. Additional recertification requirements are listed in the solicitation (Section G.13.; FAR Clause 52.219-28) |
| H.29 | FedRAMP Security Requirements for Cloud-Based Services | Is there a requirement for the contractor to be FEDRAMP certified? If so, we are submitting a JV that includes two companies. Do both companies in the JV have to be FEDRAMP certified? Also, we are including a subcontractor who is FEDRAMP certified. Does the subcontractor's certification satisfy this FEDRAMP requirement? | There is no requirement to be FEDRAMP certified for the IDIQ award; however, there may be requirements competed at the task order level that may require this certification. |
| H.11.1 6010.01 KEY PERSONNEL | 3 | For the key personnel (Senior) Program Manager, could the government clarify the statement, "10 (15) years of experience managing multiple projects of minimum $5 million in value"? Does the government require a Senior Program Manager with 15 years of experience or a Program Manager with 10 or 15 years of experience? | The Government will designate the requirement at the Task Order level whether a Senior Program Manager or a Program Manager is required. Minimum experience for a Sr. PM is 15 years and for a PM 15 years. |
| H.11.1 6010.01 KEY PERSONNEL | 3 | Will the government provide education requirements for the key personnel labor category (Senior) Program Manager? | No information on education or years of experience will be provided at this time. Those requirements may be specified at the task order level as necessary. |
| H.11 | H.11.1 | Do names or resumes for Key Personnel need to be provided with our IDIQ proposal , or after award? | After IDIQ award for Task Order Proposals |
| H.20.2 | 4 | For 508 Compliance what documents must be submitted for the proposal? | Nothing at the IDIQ level. |
| H.31 | 2 | The government requests contact information for the Contractor’s representative designated to have access to the evaluation for this contract. Would the government accept the name/title of our POC with the group distribution list for our Contracts Department? This would ensure no email notification is missed in the event that our Director of Contracts is out of the office or otherwise unavailable. | Yes. This is acceptable for the information required uner H.31. |
Section J
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section J | Paragraph | Questions | Answers |
| J | Table | The list of attachments provides a title for each attachment, but it is not completely clear on which version of an attachment is the latest to be used for this submission. For example, Attachments 13 and 14 were provided with the Amendment 15 Solicitation. But the latest versions of Attachments 16 and 17 were provided with Amendment 9. Would it be possible for the Government to re-publish or at least confirm the latest versions of all the attachments needed for the proposal submission? | The latest versions of Attchs. 5, 6, 16, and 17 are provided with Amendment 0017. |
| J | n/a | List of Attachments indicates that a new Attachment 10 (RMSC) was provided. Attachment 10 was not uploaded. Please provide. | Attachment 10 is not required at the IDIQ level. It will be provided at the Task Order level if required. |
| List of Attachments | 10 | The amended RFP (Amendment 15, November 29, 2018) added to Attachment 10 (which was previously reserved) the following: SEC 6021.01 - Records Management Service Components (RMSC) Requirements. Can the Government make this document available? | Attachment 10 is not required at the IDIQ level. It will be provided at the Task Order level if required. |
Section L
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section L | Paragraph | Questions | Answers | |
| 1 | L | L.3.2 | fourth paragraph on page 74 says offerors may make formatting changes to Section J templates (e.g. headers and footers) however the most current versions of Attachments 16 and 17 are locked for editing and requires a password. Can the government provide unlocked versions or provide the password? | No. |
| 2 | L.5.4.1 | CMMI Appraisal | We are submitting as a JV that contains two companies. If one of the companies in the JV is CMMI certified, can we claim points for the JV? | Generally, Yes. See table in Section L.5 |
| 3 | L.5.4.2 | ISO 9001 Certification | We are submitting as a JV that contains two companies. If one of the companies in the JV is ISO certified, can we claim points for the JV? | Generally, yes. See table in Section L.5 |
| 4 | L.4.1 | Proposal Format Table | Amendment 15 provided both an SF 30 and an SF 33. Please confirm that for proposal resubmissions, the Amendment 15 SF 30 should be included in XY.VOL1.SF33SF30.pdf, and that the Amendment 15 SF 33 is not required. The Amendment 15 SF 33 is for new offerors. | Both the SF 33 and SF 30 provided with Amendment 15 reflecting the on-ramp information shall be submitted/acknowledged by all offerors. A new SF 33 is required to ensure all information is complete and accurate. No previously submitted SF 33 will be considered. |
| 5 | L.5.5 | The amended RFP has removed the previous requirement regarding small-business participation (previously Section L.5.5.4), and the new scoresheet reflects this change. However, the proposal format table (page 80) still lists "Attachment 18 Small Business Participation Commitment Document" as one of the required items for submission. Please clarify (1) whether offerors are required to complete Attachment 18; and (2) what, if any, small-business goals/requirements are associated with this solicitation beyond it being restricted to small businesses? | Attachment 18 is not required. Reference was removed | |
| 6 | L.5.5.2 | The amended RFP states "In order to count towards coverage of a Service Channel, at a minimum, one (1) of the submitted projects must be from the Prime Offeror (or a JV member) wherein they performed as the prime contractor on the prior project. The Relevant Experience Project must cover and obtain points under Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements per Service Channel." Please confirm that this requires prime offerors to demonstrate experience in 25% of a given scoring element with a single reference (as opposed to using multiple references to come to 20%). | ||
| The SEC assumes that the 20% reference in parentheses in the question is a typo, and should read 25%. |
In order for the Prime Offeror to obtain points for this scoring element, the Prime Offeror (or JV member) must cover and obtain points under Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements per Service Channel.The minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements may be covered by one (1) or multiple Relevant Experience Projects. See revised Section L.5.5.2.
7 L.5.2.2.5 Service Channel Relevant Experience. 5 The SEC states, ‘Each Relevant Experience Project…must have completed at least one (1) year of performance…’ If a bidder was awarded a contract less than year ago, where the contract has been ongoing under the previous incumbent for more than one year, and where the new awardee retained incumbent staff, would the SEC consider this effort as ongoing for more than one year with respect to the incumbent staff contract experience?
| No. | ||||
| 8 | L.5.1.1 | N/A | Must SFs submitted for the previous ONE OIT released RFP still be resubmitted as part of the submission for the on-ramp? | No, neither the original SF 33 nor the SF30s for AMD 0001-0014 must be resubmitted. A new SF 33 is required to ensure all information is complete and accurate. As well as acknowledgement of Amendment 0015 and all subsequent amendments. |
| 9 | L.5.5.1 | 6 | This section reads in part, "In order to obtain additional agency-experience points, all projects must have been performed by the Offeror as the Prime Contractor." Can the Prime Contractor claim experience for projects performed for the SEC as part of an interagency agreement where the contract is with another agency, but SEC is the end customer? | No. |
| 10 | L.4.1/L.5.54 | 1/2 | Please confirm that no subcontracting plan or small business participation plan is required for submission. | Correct, neither a subcontracting plan nor small business participation plan is required. |
| 11 | L.5.2.1 | 2 | May a company that is a large (unrestricted) current ONE OIT prime be part of a JV for the restricted on ramping? | Yes, but they would have to forgo their Unrestricted ONE IT contract prior to submitting a proposal. |
| 12 | L.5 | 1 | For projects and past performance for relevant experience, as described in Section L.5, will the government also consider the past performance of affiliated companies submitted by the Prime Offeror that demonstrate that the affiliate’s resources or personnel will be meaningfully involved in performance of the SEC ONE OIT contract? | Experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company can be considered only where the firm's proposal demonstrates that resources of the parent or affiliate will be provided and the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. |
| 13 | L.5 | 6 | Can we have multiple subcontractors? | Yes. |
| 14 | L.5 | 6 | Can we use a large business subcontractor's certification? | Yes. See table in Section L.5 |
| 15 | L.5 | 6 | Can we have a large business as a subcontractor (we are a small business)? | Yes. |
| 16 | L.5.5 | L.5.5.3 | Please confirm that a GSA Schedule 70 contract with two Task Order awards is eligible for this scoring element. | Yes. |
| 17 | L.5.2 | L.5.2.2.1.1 | Fore each Relevant Experience project claimed, does the Government require SOW documentation be submitted to validate points being claimed? | No. |
| 18 | Will the Government accept projects performed by a separate JV, of which the Prime Offeror was a member? | Only if the Prime Offeror was actively performing a significant portion of the project that was integral to the project (not ancillary). | ||
| 19 | Will the Government accept projects performed by a separate JV, of which the subcontractor on an Offeror's team was a member? | No. | ||
| 20 | Is there a maximum number of subcontractors allowed on a team? | No. As long as the requirements of FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, are met. | ||
| 21 | L.5.2 | L.5.2.2 | What is the Government's understanding of "significant performance" of work being claimed as a scoring element? Our understanding is that it denotes work that was an essential part of contract performance (not an auxiliary service), not necessarily that it constituted the majority of the contract work. Is that correct? | The work being relied upon must have been integral to the project, and not ancillary. There is no requirement that the work being relied on was the majority of the contract work, just a meaningful, substantial portion. In the context of L.5.2.2, integral means that the work is related to the core purpose of the contract, as opposed to ancillary. |
| 22 | L.5 | L.5 | Since certifications are accepted from subcontractors, is it possible to have a subcontractor on a team who provides certifications but no Service Channel projects? | Yes. |
| 23 | L.5 | L.5 | Is there a minimum number of points each subcontractor needs to claim to be part of an Offeror's team? | No. |
| 24 | L.5.6 | L.5.6 | Does the Government require Offerors to demonstrate escalation for each year of the base period? If so, how should this be demonstrated in Attachment 12? | No. The offeror is required to submit Maximum Rates with no escalation. |
| 25 | L.3.7 | L.3.7 | When does the Government anticipate releasing answers to questions? | |
| 26 | L.3.6 | L.3.6 | Due to the holidays, will the Government consider an extension to the due date by one week to January 22, 2019? | The proposal due date is extended to 7 February 2019. |
| 27 | L.5.2.2 SERVICE CHANNEL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE | Last Paragraph | If we have a project with information assurance and Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 application support experience, but it isn't specific to the platforms listed under SC1, can we still claim the respective points attached to these experience elements? | The scoring elements listed in the Self-Scoring Worksheet under SC1, Heading "Platform Application Operations and Maintenance Support Services", are not platform specific. |
| 28 | L.5.5.4 | 1 & 2 | Per the original solicitation at L.5.5.4 Small Business Participation, all vendors, including those in the restricted pool, were authorized to claim credit for applicable socio-economic goals for any percentage of total contract value they perform in addition to the 50% of cost of contract performance required by FAR 52.219-14. Section L.5.5.4 was removed from the on-ramping solicitation; hence, eliminating the allowance to claim Small Business Participation points. Section M.2, Basis for Award, states that awards will only be made to Offerors whose total validated score is at least 17,260. Can you please confirm that the 17,260 score was adjusted to account for the removal of the Small Business Participation credits? | Yes. |
| 29 | L.5.2.2 | 4, 5, 6 | Could you please identify the FAR clause that allows SEC to modify the on-ramp solicitation in significant ways compared to the original solicitation? The addition of the 25% requirement for coverage of scoring elements, the limitation of one project per scoring element and the substantially IT requirement are substantial changes. |
| All changes made are modest and consistent with the original approach. The requirement to cover and obtain points under Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements per Service Channel ONLY pertains to obtaining additional points under Section L.5.5.2, "Number of Service Channels Covered." | ||||
| 30 | L.5.2.2 | 4, 5, 6 | The on-ramp includes substantial changes from the original solicitation, including the addition of the 25% requirement for coverage of scoring elements, the limitation of one project per scoring element and the substantially IT requirement. Are these changes permitted without incurring protests? | All changes made are modest and consistent with the original approach. The requirement to cover and obtain points under Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements per Service Channel ONLY pertains to obtaining additional points under Section L.5.5.2, "Number of Service Channels Covered." |
| 31 | L.5.5.2 | 1 | The on-ramp includes substantial changes from the original solicitation, including the addition of the 25% requirement for coverage of scoring elements, the limitation of one project per scoring element and the substantially IT requirement. Are these changes permitted without incurring protests? | All changes made are modest and consistent with the original approach. The requirement to cover and obtain points under Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements per Service Channel ONLY pertains to obtaining additional points under Section L.5.5.2, "Number of Service Channels Covered." |
| 32 | L.5.1.3.1 | Can a Joint Venture entity—submitting as Prime, also have subcontractors? | Yes. | |
| 33 | L.5 | 5 | If the offeror is a joint venture, must all the relevant experience have been performed by the JV itself or one of the members of the JV? In other words, is it correct that no subcontractor teammates are permitted when the offeror is a JV? | Subcontractor teammates are permitted when the offeror is a JV. See table Section L.5. |
| 34 | L.5 | 5 | If submitting as a JV, can subcontractors' relevant experience as primes be used for the submission? | Yes, see table Section L.5. |
| 35 | L.5.2.2 | 1 | "Each project must have included significant performance of the type of work covered by the claimed scoring element for which it is being provided." Can you please qualify/define "significant?" | The work being relied upon must have been integral to the project, and not ancillary. There is no requirement that the work being relied on was the majority of the contract work, just a meaningful, substantial portion. |
| 36 | L.5.4 VOLUME 4 – CERTIFICATIONS // Scoring Sheet | 1 and 2 | Will the government consider allowing an additional 200 points to companies that have the ISO 44001 certification? | No. |
| 37 | L.5.2 // Scoring Sheet | Service Channel 1 | Will the government consider allowing $3M contracts to be sufficient for those projects that are currently labeled/required to be $5M on the scoring sheet? | No. |
| 38 | L | 5.2.2.1.1 | If an offer submitted signed completed Relevant Experience (Service Channel) Project Templates for the original submission and plans to use these same ones for the on ramp, do they have to resigned by the CO? | If the previously submitted documents comply with the requirements of this on-ramp solicitation and are accurate and current, the documents may be re-submitted without change, and without being resigned by the CO. Minor changes are acceptable as long as they are identified on the form. |
| 39 | SF33 |
L.5.1.1 n/a
| 5 | Since this is "Amendment 15", are we required to indicate all previous Amendments from the original procurement, or make any reference to the original submission or amendments for our submission on the SF 33 or other documents? | No, only the new SF 33 as well as Amendment 15 (and any subsequent amendments) must be provided/acknowledged. | |||
| 40 | L.5.2.2 | 3 | This new requirements limit bidders to a single reference per scoring element. Based on lack of visibility into specific type of experience the evaluators will be looking for in specific elements, we respectfully request that the government again allow multiple submissions within specific scoring elements to be reviewed and scored. | The requirement of a single reference remains. | |
| 41 | L.5 | N/A | Related to the "Projects and Past Performance for Relevant Experience Submission Overview" table, could the SEC clarify how the "Number of Service Channels Covered" row relates to the scoring of offer submissions for Prime Offerors? | This row only relates to submissions under Section L.5.5.2. Points are awarded where the Prime Offeror (performing as a prime contractor on prior projects) demonstrates experience in 3 or more of the Service Channels. Verification requirements will be based on the project documentation submitted under Relevant Experience in Volume 2. In order for the Prime's experience to count towards coverage of a Service Channel for these points, the Relevant Experience Project must be from the Prime Offeror or a JV member wherein they performed as the prime contractor on the prior project. Additionally, the Relevant Experience Project must have obtained points in Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements on a Service Channel that is being claimed. | |
| 42 | L.5 | N/A | Related to the "Projects and Past Performance for Relevant Experience Submission Overview" table, is there a minimum requirement for the Number of Service Channels Covered as defined by this section for Prime Offer submission qualification? | See Section M.5.4.2 and the "Risk Assessment" section of the Self Scoring Worksheet. Coverage of 3-4 Service Channels earns 500 points; Coverage of 5 or more Service Channels earns 1000 points. Channel Coverage is not cumulative and the Prime Offeror can only receive points for the highest number of channels covered. | |
| 43 | L.5.3 | 6 | If a project was completed within 4 years of January 15, 2019 and the FINAL CPARS was submitted at anytime since then is that CPARS acceptable in lieu of the past performance evaluation form? | Yes. | |
| 44 | L.5.6 | 3 | Should offerors use the previous amendments pricing attachment since there is no updated form in amendment 16? | Yes. | |
| 45 | L.5.2.2 | 1 | Will the Government please provide a more detailed definition of "integral". Typically, integral is defined as "necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental." We request the Government be very clear with its own definition of the word so that all offerors operate under a clear understanding. | In the context of L.5.2.2, integral means that the work is related to the core purpose of the contract, as opposed to ancillary. | |
| 46 | L.5.2.2 | 1 | Will the Government please consider removing the language "Additionally, the overall project must have been primarily for IT services, as opposed to a project that included small or limited amounts of IT services as part of a larger non-IT project?" If Company A performs a specific niche IT services and can validate it though a signature from the Contracting Office, we do not feel they should be scored differently than another company potentially performing the exact same IT services, simply because the rest of the contract where the Offeror is not attempting to score points, is considered a "Non-IT project". | The Government will not accept projects wherein the IT service was a small or limited portion of an otherwise non-IT or business support project. | |
| 47 | L.5.2.2.1.1 | 1 | Will the Government be able to reject claimed points by the Offeror when the Offeror has provided signed documents from their customer, validating their experience? If so, will the Government please provide a detailed scenario outlining why such a scenario would occur? | Yes, the Government reserves the right to reject claimed points even if the document was signed by the customer. Reasons include, but are not limited to: the offeror's experience identified for a scoring element does not fall within the context of the particular Service Channel; the period of performance or dollar value of the project doesn't meet applicable requirements; and the project is not primarily for IT services. | |
| 48 | L.5.5.3 | 1 | In Section L.5.5.3, the Government states "If claiming credit for this scoring element, the Offeror must provide verification by submitting two (2) Task or Call Order Award Forms with respective FPDS Records. These can be other than previously submitted projects if the NAICS code reflects IT Services." Will the Government please clarify what specific codes reflect "IT Services"? Our assumption is all 541 NAICS codes qualify as IT services. | IT NAICS codes are predominantly within "5415" | |
| 49 | L.5.3.2 | 1 | In Section L.5.3.2, Past Performance, the Government states "If the Government has not finalized past performance ratings in the PPIRS database that links to CPARS or the ratings are older than one (1) year from date of proposal submission, the Offeror shall submit a certified Past Performance Relevance Experience Form using the template, Attachment 17, “Past Performance Relevance Experience Form.” Will the Government consider accepting ratings within 2 years of the proposal due date? Given that experience can go back 4 full years from the due date, we feel it would be acceptable to go back 2 years for performance, in light of finalized PPIRS oftentimes being delayed. | The Final CPARS for expired projects may be older than one (1) year from date of proposal submission. | |
| 50 | L.5.5.2 | 5 | How has the SEC created a level playing field by changing the solicitation requirement below? | ||
| The Relevant Experience Project must cover and obtain points under Volume 2 for a minimum of 25% of the listed scoring elements per Service Channel. | The requirement to cover 25% of the listed scoring points under a Service Channel only applies if the offeror wants to claim additional points for experience by the Prime Offeror across multiple Service Channels under L.5.5.2. This requirement applies equally to all offerors for the on-ramp solicitation and is a modest adjustment from the original solicitation. | ||||
| 51 | L.5.2.2 | 3 | How has the SEC created a level playing field by changing the solicitation requirement below? | ||
| 3. Column H in the Self Scoring Worksheet may reference only one (1) Relevant Experience Project per scoring element. If multiple Relevant Experience Projects are listed, only the first one will be validated. | This requirement applies equally to all offerors for the on-ramp solicitation and is a modest adjustment from the original solicitation. | ||||
| 52 | L.5.2.2 | 6 | How has the SEC created a level playing field by changing the solicitation requirement below? | ||
| Additionally, the overall project must have been primarily for IT services, as opposed to a project that included small or limited amounts of IT services as part of a larger non-IT project. | This requirement has not changed. The original solicitation required that the performance of the claimed element must have been integral to the performance of the project and for IT Services. This requirement applies equally to all offerors for the on-ramp solicitation | ||||
| 53 | L | L.5.4.1 | Please explain what document the Government is referencing with this requirement "The offer shall make reference to the page number and paragraph of the certification or letter that determined the approval of the ISO 9001 Certification." Is this applicable to the CMMI Maturity Level? | For each of the potential certifications at L.5.4.1 to L.5.4.4 (including CMMI Maturity Level and ISO certifications), the RFP requires the offeror to reference the relevant page number and paragraph within the verification document, certification, audit report or letter that supports the claimed certification. | |
| 54 | L | L.5.4.2 | Please explain what document the Government is referencing with this requirement "The offer shall make reference to the page number and paragraph of the certification or letter that determined the approval of the ISO 9001 Certification." Is this applicable to ISO certifications? | See Q&A 53 | |
| 55 | L | L.5.4.3 | Please explain what document the Government is referencing with this requirement "The offer shall make reference to the page number and paragraph of the certification or letter that determined the approval of the ISO 20000 Certification." Is this applicable to ISO certifications? | See Q&A 53 | |
| 56 | L | L.5.4.4 | Please explain what document the Government is referencing with this requirement "The offer shall make reference to the page number and paragraph of the certification or letter that determined the approval of the ISO/IEC 27000 Certification." Is this applicable to ISO certifications? | See Q&A 53 |
Section M
503102-18-R-0005 - On-Ramp Event - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers
| Section M | Paragraph | Questions | Answers |
| Section M.1 | 3 | If a company has multiple socio-economic certifications (eg. 8(a) and HUBzone), do they have twice as many chances of being awarded ONE OIT? | Each applicable socio economic certification (e.g., 8(a), HUBzone, etc.) in a single offer can be considered separately by the government but having multiple socio-economic certifications is not considered a benefit or discriminatiory factor in and of itself. |
| Section M.5.4.3 | 1 | We are awarded a multiple awards contract (MAC) as prime vendor, but the MAC is awarded by a state government, not federal government. Will we receive additional points. If so, how many? | Foreign, state, and local government projects are not acceptable. |
| M.5.4 | M.5.4.1 | "The additional SEC agency experience points can only be earned if the points claimed under Volume 2 for the same project were validated." To be eligible for the Agency Experience points, does each SEC project need to claim a minimum number of points under Volume 2? | No. |
| M.5.4.1 | Did the previous SEC ONE Small Business Awardees have SEC past performance experience prior to the original proposal submittal? | This is source selection sensitive information and cannot be provided. | |
| M.5.1.1 | What were the total minimum and maximum points received by small business company awardees for the original SEC ONE OIT contract? | This is source selection sensitive information and cannot be provided. | |
| M.5.4.2 | 1 | Seeing that "Covering multiple Service Channels is not a minimum or mandatory requirement for Prime Offerors," is covering any single Service Channel as a Prime Contractor required for Prime Offerors? | It is technically not a requirement for a Prime Offeror to cover any single service channel; however, not covering any service channels would make the offer ineligible for several scoring elements. |
Sheet1
File details come from the government source that posted it.