50310219R0016_QAFinal_AMD0004.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SEC OneIT On-Ramping Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 50310219R0016
- Issued by
- Securities and Exchange Commission
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation number 50310219R0016 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for information technology services under the SEC OneIT program. The solicitation seeks proposals for a range of technical support services across seven service channels, including platform application development, systems development life cycle support, database management, and cybersecurity services. Offerors must demonstrate experience providing required services for all seven channels through submission of relevant past performance references and commercial experience. Proposals are due by 31 October 2019, with an intent to award contracts to the top ten rated offerors and additional awards to meet small business participation goals if determined to be in the government's best interest.
50310219R0016 AMEND 0004 Questions and Answers - Updated
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 26
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
Section A 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers - Section A
| Q# | Section A | Para | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 2 | Section A | 8 | 5 | It is required that vendors “clearly indicate in their response to the OneIT RFP that their proposal is valid for 180 days.” As there is no indication of where proposals shall specify this, should vendors assume this requirement will be satisfied in properly filling out the SF 33? | Reference Section L.3.1.1 Paragraph (1): "The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of not less than 180 calendar days. The Offeror shall complete Block 12 of each SF33 submitted with full cognizance of the minimum acceptance period of 180 calendar days. 'Acceptance Period' means the number of calendar days available to the Government for awarding a Contract form the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of offers. Your offer may only specify a longer acceptance period than the Government's minimum requirement." |
Section C 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Section C
| Q# | Section C | Para | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | C | 4 | 11 | What is SEC’s definition of what “high availability” and is the RTO established by FedRAMP Moderate sufficient to meet disaster recovery requirements? | Further information is not necessary for the submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. Additional information will be provided at the task order level as appropriate. |
| 2 | C | 5.5.2 | 19 | What is the required availability timeframe for after hours support and what kind of support services are required? | Further information is not necessary for the submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. We are interested in prior experience with after hours support, in general. Additional information will be provided at the task order level as appropriate. |
| 3 | C | 5.6.1 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 4 | C | 5.6.3 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 5 | C | 5.6.4 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 6 | C | 5.6.5 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 7 | C | 5.6.7 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 8 | C | 5.7.1 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 9 | C | 5.7.2 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 10 | C | 5.7.3 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 11 | C | 5.7.4 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 12 | C | 5.7.5 | 20 | What components make up this work category? | The information provided is sufficient to respond to this solicitation |
| 13 | C | 5.1.2 | 15 | Could the government provide some insight into the applications that use Salesforce today and any plans for utilizing this platform in the future. | This is not relevant for the submission of a proposal for this solicitation. |
| 14 | C | 5.5.1 | 19 | Could the government clarify what it means by Query Optimization; whether it’s the same as an aspect of database tuning that’s part of application performance management? | Query Optimization as used in Section 5.5.1 is to be understood within the context of Data Analytics and Big Data Support. It is distinct from references to optimization or tuning in other sections of the Statement of Objectives. |
| 15 | C | 5.5.3 | 19 | Could the government describe what applications use Sybase today and their life expectancies? | Further information is not necessary for the submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. Additional information will be provided at the task order level as appropriate. |
| 16 | C | 5.1.2 | 15 | The listing description under the "Provide Platform Application Development Support Services" heading in the PWS includes such items as Project and Task Management, requirements gathering, etc. but these are significantly different from what is listed on the self-scoring worksheet (Oracle Fusion Middleware, Drupal, etc.). The self-scoring worksheet seems to list the same items as those listed under Operations and Maintenance Services. Can the government clarify which list is correct: the self-scoring worksheet (SC1, Platform Application Dev Support Services), or the list in the PWS? | Points will be awarded under Platform Application Development Support Services on a platform by platform basis, as listed on the self-scoring worksheet. Points will be awarded where the offeror has experience performing the types of tasks listed in the SOO under the Platform Application Development Support Services heading (Project and Task Management, Requirements gathering, etc.) for a particular platform. |
| 17 | C | 5.1.2 | 15 | Will the Government assess points for projects that include the experiences listed in the PWS under this paragraph even though they are not on the self-scoring worksheet? | |
| 18 | C | 5.2.2 | 12 | 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. Project and Task Management will be required but is not a separately scored element in this Section. |
| 19 | C | 5.2.3 | 17 | The listing description under the "Current Application Development Process or Tool Support Services" heading includes a caveat that is not listed in the self-scoring worksheet. The worksheet states Customer and user training but the PWS says Customer and user training inclusive of development of training materials. Will the Government use the descriptions in the self-scoring worksheet or the descriptions in the PWS to assess the points for a project? | The self-scoring worksheet is a short-hand version of what is listed in the referenced section of the SOO. The description in the SOO will be applied for this scoring element. |
| 20 | C | 5.5.1 | 19 | Service Channel 5 has a scoring element titled “ETL Scripting and Administration in the Current Environment of Tivoli, Data Stage and Hadoop/Spark” Where the Government says “the Current Environment” does this mean specifically in the SEC environment? | It refers to the current environment of Tivoli, DataStage, and Hadoop/Spark |
| 21 | C | 5.5.2 | 19 | Work Category - Database Management and Administration Support Services lists "Amazon Relational Database Services" as a requirement, but lists a similar requirement as "Cloud Relational Database Services" in Attachment 14. Can the Government confirm that the more general wording in Attachment 14 is scored in lieu of the more vendor-specific language in the PWS? | The more general wording in Attachment 14 will be scored. |
| 22 | C | 5.5.2 | 19 | Work Category - Database Management and Administration Support Services lists subheading PostgreSQL as a requirement, but that requirement is not listed in Attachment 14. Can the Government confirm the above requirements is not part of the scoring criteria? | PostgreSQL is a subtask that is not separately scored. Points are credited for Cloud Relational database experience. The SOO merely lists PostgreSQL as one specific to Amazon which is currently in use at the SEC. However, scoring is not limited to experience with Amazon. |
Section G 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Section G
| Q# | Section G | Para | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | Small Business Recertification | 31 | Reference states: "...small businesses will be required to recertify their small business size status 90 days prior to the end of the fifth year of the Contract and prior to exercising the option". Recommend changing statement to read "….90 days prior to the end of the base year of the Contract and prior to exercising the option." Rationale: The Base Period is less than 5-years; ending on 21 Oct 2023. | The referenced Section of the Solicitation has been amended. |
Section H 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Section H
| Q# | Section H | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | H | 3 | 49 | What is SEC’s definition of a disaster and is the component of the FedRAMP SSP, ISCP sufficient to meet disaster recovery requirements and procedures? | The SEC relies on applicable laws, regulations, and government-wide policies for what constitutes a "disaster." Any more specific requirements will be provided at the task order level. |
| 2 | H | 6013.00 | 45 | The last URL mentioned in this paragraph is not available, would the government provide an active link or the referenced document? | The correct link is: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/specialpublications/NIST.SP.800-70r4.pdf |
The referenced Section of the Solicitation has been amended.
| 3 | H | 6012.02 | 43 | This section indicates that offerors must be in compliance with Section 508 standards and that offerors who fail to demonstrate compliance may be eliminated for consideration for award. Please validate that offerors are NOT required to submit information to demonstrate compliance with this submission. | No submission requirement under this solicitation. 508 requirements will be assessed at the task order level. |
| 4 | 6010.03 POINT OF CONTACT (14-MAR-12) | 6010.03 | p. 39 | Does the Offeror need to identify the Key Personnel at the time of proposal submission or after contract award? | Key Personnel are identified at the task order level. |
| 5 | 6010.03 POINT OF CONTACT (14-MAR-12) | 6010.03 | p. 39 | Does the Offeror need to provide resume(s) for the Key Personnel? | Resumes are not required with proposal submission in response to this solicitation. |
Section J 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Section J
| Question | Section J | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | Section J | 1 | 93 | Attachment 15 is not available in the downloads package (Reserved status in Section J) and Attachment 16 is there twice. Could the government please clarify? | There are no Attachments 11 and 15; Attachment 16 was accidentally uploaded twice. |
Section L 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Section L
| Q# | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | 3.4 | 140 | Shouldn't listing on the FedRAMP Marketplace be added to the list of certifications at the top of page 141, so that completion of a FedRAMP RAR or SAR or JAB (per the FedRAMP PMO and thus a listing on the FedRAMP Marketplace) makes the Offeror "considered more favorably", particularly as: FedRAMP is the US federal requirement for all cloud solutions (per Presidential, NIST, and federal CIO documents); FedRAMP is the higher cybersecurity standard (per NIST and federal standards) compared to ISO (see, for example: https://www.schellman.com/blog/fedramp-vs-iso-27001). | No, not for this solicitation. FedRAMP (and other certifications) may become requirements at the task order level. |
| 2 | 3.2.2.1.1(c) | 137 | Note states that "Foreign, state, and local government projects are not acceptable as relevant experience". Does this mean that projects in which the US small business (submitting for OneIT) was a subcontractor for its Canadian affiliate's projects are not acceptable as relevant experience? | If a small business performed as a subcontractor on the prior project, that performance would be considered a commercial project for the small business. |
| 3 | 1.6 | 118 | Due to the issues with getting completed references to the COs, getting them signed, and returned to us for inclusion in the proposal, to ensure completion for all references, we respectfully request at least a 2 week extension to the due date. | The proposal due date was extended until 31 October 2019 via Amendment 0002. |
| 4 | 3.3.1 | 138 | When a CPAR is to be submitted from a subcontractor, may the subcontractor provide that document to the government separately to protect proprietary information? | In this case, the form can be submitted by the subcontractor directly to the ONEOIT@sec.gov email by the proposal due date/time. If the form is not received by the due date/time, no credit will be given. If CPAR is submitted directly by the subcontractor, the email subject line shall be as follows: "OneIT 50310219R0016 - NAME OF THE OFFEROR - NAME OF THE SUBMITTING TEAM MEMBER - CPAR" and the filename shall follow the instructions in the Proposal Format Table (L.2.1) |
| 5 | 3.5.3 | 144 | The second paragraph under the table indicates that the Prime offeror may claim credit for applicable socio-economic goals for any percentage of total contract value they perform above the 50% of the contract performance required by FAR 52.219-14. Why wouldn't their socio-economic attributes be eligible to meet the requirements of both concurrently (e.g., a company who meets all four attributes of Hubzone, WOSB, SDVOSB and SDB who will perform 50% would concurrently meet this paragraph and the FAR by performing 50%)? | It is the SEC's goal to utilize small business to the maximum extent possible. The solicitation thus gives additional points only to proposals that exceed the FAR minimum 50% performance requirement. |
| 6 | 2 | 120 | This section indicates that "Small Businesses" may submit Volume 2 and Volume 3 separately from the Prime if there is sensitive or proprietary information contained in those volumes. We have a large business on our team who would like to submit Volumes 2 and 3 separately. Please verify that Large businesses may also submit Volume 2 and Volume 3 separately per Section L.2. | Any team member may submit required information separately (directly to the government) when sensitive or proprietary information is contained in the submission. All submission requirements, naming conventions, and deadlines must be complied with. |
| 7 | 3.2.2.1 (6) | 135 | When JVs are completing Part 1 of Attachment 16, the Offeror Name should contain the legal JV name. Should the Contractor Name contain the individual JV member's company name? Or, should that field be left blank? | The vendor name should be the name of the entity that performed the project. |
| 8 | 2.1 (1) | 120 | When naming the Relevant Experience Project files, should the Project number that follows the Service Channel number restart for each Service Channel? Or, should Project numbers be consecutive across all Service Channels? | The project number that follows the Service Channel number should restart for each Service Channel. |
| 9 | 3.3.2 (2) | 140 | For the Corporate Official signature requirement relevant to commercial projects, who does the Government consider to be authorized to sign? Titles and positions vary among commercial companies. | Someone with signatory authority. |
| 10 | 3 | 127 | Please clarify how experience of subcontractors can be taken into account at evaluation to meet the requirement for seven Service Channels along with the prime's experience. | Project work can be performed by either the Prime Offeror (or JV member) as the prime or subcontractor on the prior project or by the proposed Subcontractor as the Prime on the prior project. See Chart in Section L.3. |
| 11 | 3 | 127 | Please clarify how experience of CTA members can be taken into account at evaluation to meet the requirement for seven Service Channels along with the prime's experience. | Project work can be performed by either the Prime Offeror (or JV member) as the prime or subcontractor on the prior project or by the proposed Subcontractor as the Prime on the prior project. See Chart in Section L.3. |
| 12 | 3.2.2 (2) | 134 | Since a single PP can be used in multiple service channels, multiple copies of the PP need to be generated. Problem this requires multiple Government signatures. May we generate a Master PP that requires only one signature and highlight the section relevant for each service channel? This reduces the overhead on the Government. Naturally, we follow the naming convention. | Yes. |
| 13 | 1.1 | 116 | If a contractor is working on a current OneOIT task (original RFP # 50310218R0005) as a subcontractor, are they eligible to submit a proposal as a Prime contractor or Core JV teammember for the new OneIT solicitation (50310219R0016)? Could they be a subcontractor on a JV Team? | A contractor currently performing work under a OneIT task order as a subcontractor can be awarded a prime contract as a result of this on-ramp. The contractor will be required to complete work on the already awarded OneIT task order before performing work on a new Task Order with the new team. The contractor may only be on one team and one proposal for any given task order. Note that depending on the prior Task Order work performed and the nature of the subsequent Task Order, switching to a new team could raise potential OCIs that the contractor would be responsible for identifying, and which would be addressed by the agency at the task order level. |
| 14 | 3.1.1 | 128 | If there are more than four (4) Amendments that have SF 30s associated with them, should Offerors use up the four table cells in SF 33, block 14 and then continue documenting those in file "XY.VOL1.SF33SF30.pdf" starting with the fifth? Our reading of this requirement suggests that once a fifth amendment is released, ALL amendments should then be documented within the "SF33SF30" file and the SF 33 block 14 should point the evaluator towards that section for acknowledgement of all amendments. | Use Block 14 for the first 4 amendments and submit the SF30 starting with the fifth amendment. |
| 15 | 2.1 | 123 | For page count restrictions, will the Government count content as a full page for ANY text on each? Or can Offerors count a reasonable fraction of a page in determining compliance within page counts per Service Channel? | The Government will count reasonable fractions. |
| 16 | 2.1 | 123 | May Offerors use number prefixes in filenames to organize each Volume sub-folder's files? This would seek compliance with the Government's requirement that "Documents shall be submitted in the following order:" | No. |
| 17 | 3.1.3.1 | 129-130 | Does a company's legal team, including Director of Contracts, inherit signature authority for binding CTA/JV subcontractors? Or must these employees be named, including title, in any JV Agreement that companies sign on to for letters of intent, permission to share past performance information, etc.? As stated on page 131, "Signature by a Corporate Officer/Official..." could be interpreted to include a Director of Contracts. | The person who has the authority to bind a JV is determined by the JV agreement. |
| 18 | 2.1 (1) | 121 | Would the Government consider expanding the page limit under Cover Page/Letter to include an Executive Summary that would give bidders an opportunity to further introduce their team and approach to managing efforts under the IDIQ? | No. |
| 19 | 3.1.3.1 (1) | 130 | If a company grows out of its size standard during the Period of Performance of the IDIQ, would it become ineligible for future task orders? | See page 31, Small Business Recertification: "If the option is exercised, the Government will move small business contractors to the unrestricted pool if they can no longer re-certify as a small business." |
| 20 | 3.4 (2) | 141 | Will the Government accept multiple certifications under each category if held by prime and/or multiple subcontractors? | Yes; however, submission of multiple certifications will not change the points available for each scoring element or the maximum number of points that can be obtained for certifications. |
| 21 | 2.1 | 123 | In the Page Limit column of the Proposal Format Table, it is stated that Attachment 16 shall be "limited to template space provided; narrative limited:" and then the various page limits are provided for each of the seven service channels. A) Does "narrative" refer to "Part 3: Project Description"? B) If the answer to "A" is yes, is Part 3 the only part of Attachment 16 that is subject to these page limits? C) Since each project will be described on a separate form within each service channel, does each page limit apply only to one form/project, or to the combination of all the forms/projects within a service channel? | (A) Yes. |
(B) Yes.
(C) Stated page limits for Attachment 16 refer to the total allowed for each service channel.
| 22 | 3.3 | 138 | Do the exceptions listed as "a" and "b" on this page refer to the preceding paragraph and, if so, how, in relation to Volume 3? They appear similar to the exceptions listed on page 135, which refers to Volume 2. | The referenced exceptions refer to the preceding paragraph in the solicitation; the solicitation has been amended to clarify Section L.3.3. The exceptions are the same for Vol. 2 and Vol. 3, as both volumes rely on the same projects. |
| 23 | 3.4 | 140-143 | If a certification expires after the original proposal due date but before any extended proposal due date, will points be received for it? | No. Certifications must be current at time of proposal submission. |
| 24 | 3.5.3 | 144-145 | If the Prime Offeror is a WOSB, would performance of 51% of the work satisfy the 5% WOSB requirement toward the required 20% in the Restricted Pool? | No. Per Section L.5.3, "The Prime Offeror may claim credit for applicable socio-economic goals for any percentage of total contract value they perform above the 50% of cost of contract performance required by FAR 52.219-14." As the additional 20% small business participation goals are in 5% increments, the total participation of the Prime would need to be at least 55% to receive any additional points for the Prime's performance. Please review examples in Section L.5.3 for further clarification. |
| 25 | 3.4 (5) | 141 | Section L.3.4 of the solicitation implies (even though Section M.4.3 does not allow) that Offerors can receive points for Certifications held by subcontractors. SEC is best served by awarding the SEC OneIT contract to Offerors that have the processes, procedures, and experience to deliver services as a prime. Awarding points for certifications held by subcontractors implies that SEC is looking to identify Offerors that will be a pass through for other companies, which does not provide value to SEC, just increased costs. Thus, please confirm (in alignment with Section M.4.3) that SEC will only provide points for Certifications held by the Offeror or a JV member. | In accordance with The table in Section L.3, certifications can be held by the Prime Offeror, a JV Team Member, or a proposed subcontractor. |
| 26 | 1.1 (2) | 116 | Could the Government please confirm that the requirement that Small Business Offerors must cover all 7 service channels includes the coverage demonstrated by the Prime and its proposed Subcontractors? | Confirmed. |
| 27 | 2.1 | 121-126 | The Proposal Format Table appears to extend beyond the right edge of pages 121-126. Could the Government please confirm that no information has been cut off? | No information is cut off. The last column is "Example File Name." |
| 28 | p. 144 | Please clarify that the Offeror may use GSA Schedule contracts (i.e., Schedule 70) to satisfy the Multiple-Award Contracts scoring criteria. | GSA Schedule contracts are multiple-award contracts that can satisfy the criteria, but per L.3.5.2 must be verified with two (2) Task of Call Order Award Forms and the respective FPDS records. | |
| 29 | 3.1.3.2 (11) | 132 | The solicitation states that "The offer must submit a Subcontractor Letter of Commitment for each proposed subcontractor (to include proposed small business subcontractors in the Small Business Participation Plan)." |
1. In which Volume should Letters of Commitment be submitted?
2. Is there any required template or page limitation for Letters of Commitment?
3. Is a Letter of Commitment required for CTA Members? 1. Per the table in Section L.2.1, Letters of Commitment must be submitted in Volume 1.
2. Per the table in Section L.2.1, there is no page limit or format but letters must include the information required in L.3.1.3.2 Section 3.
3. Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTA) are defined in L.3.1.3 and the documentation requirements for each of these arrangements are listed in subsequent sections.
| 30 | 1.2 (3) | 116 | Can the subsidiary of a full and open SEC OneIT awardee be a subcontractor to a bidder on the Small Business OnRamp if the parent company of the subsidiary does not participate? | No. Per Solicitation Section L.1.2, “existing OneIT contract holders, either through their. . . affiliates, subsidiaries . . . are not eligible to participate in this On-Ramping event.” | |
| 31 | 1.2 (4) | 117 | The RFP states no formatting changes. | ||
| Does the Government allow us to keep the same font type and same size of the templates, but use bold, underline, and Italic to enhance the readability of the documents? | Yes. | ||||
| 32 | 2.1 (1) | 122 | "… if claiming points for small business participation (L.3.5.4)" | ||
| It seems there is no L.3.5.4. Would the Government confirm L.3.5.4 is a typo and it was meant to be L.3.5.3. | Confirmed - the reference should be to L.3.5.3. The solicitation will be amended to correct the error. | ||||
| 33 | 3.2.2 (12) | 135 | Would the Government grant 4 additional weeks to allow us time to review Q&A, and secure the required signatures from COs? | The proposal due date was extended until 31 October 2019. | |
| 34 | 1.2 | 117 | Second full paragraph on page 117 says offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section K templates. Section K is the Reps and Certs. Does the Government actually mean Section J? | No. | |
| 35 | 1.2 | 117 | Third full paragraph on page 117 says offerors may add identifying proposal volume identifiers in the headers and footers of the Section J templates however Attachments 16 and 17 are locked for editing. Can the government provide unlocked versions of the templates? | No. These headers/footers will have to be added once converted to pdf. | |
| 36 | 2 | 124 | Volume III naming requirements says one single file per Service Channel projects, but File name column indicates multiple files for each project. Can the government confirm which file preference and naming conventions to use? | The file name for Vol 3 is XY.VOL3.PP.SC1.pdf; XY.VOL3.PP.SC2.pdf - one file per Service Channel. (The other files are for CO Emails or if Subcontractor submits separately). | |
| 37 | 2 | 119 | Reference states that the proposal shall be formatted into six separate zipped folders by volume and title and provides a naming convention that does not include the offeror’s name. Then it goes on to say the folder naming convention is name of offeror – volume x. Does the folder naming convention refer to the zipped folder, or a folder within the zipped folder? | Section L.2 provides only one naming convention for the 6 required folders: NAME OF THE OFFEROR - VOLUME X. This naming convention applies to the 6 required zipped folders; there is no requirement for sub-folders within the zipped folders. | |
| 38 | 3.4 (5) | 141 | The line above the Note states that the "Offeror, a JV member or Subcontractor can hold the certification." As the privity of contract resides with the Offeror or JV, the Offeror or JV is contractually responsible for the delivery of services. The subcontract does not have privity of contract and is not responsible to SEC for delivery of services. | ||
| The prime Offeror (or JV) will use their own certified methodologies to deliver the services to SEC and the subcontractors will follow those methodologies. As such, it is irrelevant if a subcontractor holds any certifications, as their methodologies will not be used to deliver the contracted services and SEC will not receive any benefits for subcontractor certification’s. Therefore, would SEC please remove the ability to receive points for Certifications for any Subcontractors and only award points for Certifications held by the Offeror or JV so SEC is truly evaluating the risk of service delivery in alignment with actual practices? Making this change will also align with Section M.4.3 of the solicitation that only awards points for certifications held by the "Offeror (or JV members)" | No. Certifications may be provided as stated in the solicitation. | ||||
| 39 | 2.1 | 123 | Reference Table instructions for Vol 2, L.3.2, Relevant Experience Projects, Page limitations. Please verify that the page limitations stated in the reference is total allowable page length for each Service Channel and that there is no page restriction on individual project experience write-ups | Page limitations are per Service Channel. | |
| 40 | 3.1.4 | 132 | Recommend the Government include the requirement for subcontractor submission of Reps & Certs / Section K. Rationale: Clarification of requirement. | No change, as RFP Section L.3.1.3.2 already requires that proposed subcontractors must be registered in SAM.GOV and must submit their individual Representations and Certifications in Section K. | |
| 41 | 3.1.2 | ||||
| Attch 14 | 121 | The SEC past performance experience is not in this scoring matrix when compared to the previous onramp matrix. Please confirm SEC past performance experience is not required. | Correct, SEC past performance experience is not required. | ||
| 42 | 3.2.2.1.1 | 137 | Per the RFP foreign, state, and local government projects are not acceptable as relevant experience. According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, the District of Columbia (DC) was established as a Federal District. DC is funded and overseen by Congress. Congress approves DC laws and budgets and the President appoints its judges. Despite years of lobbying to become a State, DC is still not a State Government nor is it a local Government because it has direct representation in Congress. It is a Federal District as established by the Constitution. The preceding shows that DC is part of the Federal Government and that a contract with the District of Columbia (DC) should be valid for purposes as a U.S. Federal agency. Will SEC accept a DC contract as a U.S. Federal agency Past Performance Project? If not, can SEC clarify why not? | The SEC will accept contracts with the District of Columbia. | |
| 43 | 3.2.2 | When the SEC references project value of $5M, $3M, etc., does the reference mean awarded value or burned value? | The project values of $3M and $5M listed in the self-scoring worksheet refer to the "Base and All Options Value" to include unexercised options. | ||
| 44 | 2.1 | 7 of AMD 3 | In this section the solicitation states "...the filename shall include the names of both companies. For example, if subcontractor/team member AB Incorporated submits relevant experience projects for XY Incorporated, the | ||
| filename would be as follows: XY.AB.VOL2.REP.SC1.Pr1.pdf..," which implies one file will be submitted per Relevant Experience Project (REP). However in the Amendment 3 Q&A response #36 states, "The file name for Vol 3 is XY.VOL3.PP.SC1.pdf; XY.VOL3.PP.SC2.pdf - one file per Service Channel..." Given the RFP seeks 1 file per REP, how do we apply the file naming convention to each REP if the REPs are consolidated into one file per service channel? | The Volume 3 Past Performance Relevant Experience projects shall be consolidated into one .pdf document per Service Channel, except to the extent a rater will not return a required Past Performance form directly to the Offeror. Under that exception, the excepted Past Performance form may be submitted directly to ONEOIT@sec.gov by the rater, and the remaining Past Performance forms shall be consolidated into one .pdf document per Service Channel. |
The file name for the consolidated .pdf document shall be: XY.VOL3.PP.SC1.pdf, XY.VOL3.PP.SC2.pdf, etc. Documents submitted directly by the rater shall have the file name XY.VOL3.PP.SC1.pdf (prime past performance) or XY.AB.VOL3.PP.SC1.pdf (subcontractor past performance), etc.
Section M 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Section M
| Q# | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | 4.2.2 (1) | 150 | Will Offerors receive points or a higher evaluation rating for SEC-specific Relevant Project Experience? If not, do you view this as a substantial difference from the initial solicitation given that this is an on-ramp? | SEC-specific Relevant Project Experience will not receive additional points or a higher evaluation rating than non-SEC experience. This is not a substantial change from the initial solicitation. |
| 2 | 4.1 (1) | 138 | May Offerors use the relevant experience write ups (Attachment 16) and past performance evaluations(Attachment 17) that we already submitted for evaluation and received points for from during initial solicitation in Fall of 2018 and still receive credit for this submission? | It is not permissible to resubmit previously signed documents, i.e. documents that were signed to be submitted under the original solicitation # 50310218R0005 or the subsequent on-ramp event under the same solicitation number. A new set of documents with new signatures must be submitted in response to this solicitation. |
| 3 | 2 (9) | 147 | The Government states: |
"In the event that making award to the Top 10 does not result in an adequate number of awardees in each of the socio-economic subcategories in the restricted pool, the SEC reserves the right to award to the next highest rated Offeror eligible for award (in addition to or in lieu of the Top 10) within a given socio-economic subcategory (SDVOSB, 8(a), WOSB, HUBZone) if determined to be in the best interest of the Government."
Could the Government please identify what is "an adequate number of awardees in each of the socio-economic subcategories"? The solicitation has been amended to remove the referenced language.
Attachments 503102-19-R-0016 - Attachment 13 Questions and Answers -- Attachments
| Q# | Section | Paragraph | Page | Questions | Answers |
| 1 | Attachment 14 | N/A | N/A | Do the dollar values listed in Service Channel 1, specifically within the Platform/Technology Specific Solutions Delivery Services section, within Attachment 14 scorecard still apply? We see no corresponding language in the RFP regarding a dollar threshold to claim those points. | Yes. |
| 2 | Attachment 18 | 1 | In Table "3. Small Business Participants" what information should offerors provide in the "Nature of Commitment" column? | E.g. Subcontractor Letter of Commitment |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .