Questions Compiled.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 77 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 77344423Q0005
About this file
This document summarizes a solicitation for a multiple award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract to provide cloud-first enterprise systems support services to the United States International Development Finance Corporation Office of Information Technology. The services include operations support, application development, cybersecurity support, and program management office services. The shared ceiling for all task orders is $300 million across four pools of services. Products and services include service desk support, end user equipment management, conference room support, reporting, account management, application monitoring and optimization, software maintenance, and license management. The response deadline is November 30th, 2022. Evaluation will consider technical experience and past performance. Awards may be made at the pool or task area level based on technical merit.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
Questions
| Page # | Section | Question | Answer | |
| 87 | L.9.2.1 Section III | “Offerors will submit finalized financial statements to include a Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flow Statement, and Statement of Retained Earnings for the Offeror’s past fiscal year and current reporting period as of the date of the proposal as well as a certified copy of the | ||
| Prime’s Line of Credit, if applicable, and its current status at the time of proposal submission. Prior to submission, a company officer or certified public accountant (CPA) will certify the statements.” This is documentation that we don’t publish because we are not publicly traded – I would word the question to say “We respectfully ask that this requirement is removed for companies that have an adequate accounting system by a cognizant federal auditor” | Offeror's must produce an audit from a cognizant federal auditor in lieu of submitting the required documents or they have an FPRA from another federal agency. | |||
| Technical question | Can the Government confirm that the list of applications (Informatica, Oracle ETL, Tableau, etc.) listed in the solicitation is exhaustive or are there additional applications like Microsoft Productivity applications? | The list is not fully comprehensive for the list of applications. Additional details will be released at the time of Task order needed. | ||
| Is the following clause incorporated by reference in Section L page 81, 1352.215-70 Proposal preparation paragraph (ii) E, F, and G only required at the Task Order Level? | No, this is to be removed | |||
| Page 91 Section X- Pricing Template- references the “Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates” as Attachment J-6. But the “Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates” has a filename which includes J-2 (not J-6). Should the reference be to Attachment J-2? | Yes, this has been amended | |||
| Will the DFC consider releasing evaluator notes regarding the Oral Presentations to their respective contractors? | No | |||
| M.1 | M.1 FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options- does this FAR clause relate to the award of the IDIQ or for task orders? If to the IDIQ, how will the Government determine the total price to be evaluated? | This is in reference to the task orders and flows down to the task orders | ||
| Attachment J-3 | When filling out the J-3 Relevant Technical Experience Self-Assessment and Validation Matrix, if the Prime Offeror is a large business, does using Technical Experience from a small business subcontractor still count as 2 points for Technical Experience and an additional 2 points if subcontractor is also the prime? | Incorrect, if the prime offeror is a large business they will receive one point for every technical experience and one point if they are the prime for that technical experience. | ||
| 85 | L.9.1 | "All proposal documentation shall be 508 compliant, including the ability to search all text within the document (including images)" | ||
| Can the government confirm that the only requirement here is that text and images are searchable for all submitted documents? | Confirmed | |||
| 92 | L.9.2.1 Section X | "Offerors are required to propose rates for |
all labor categories even if they are not proposing on all elements in the PWS."
| Can the government confirm that Offerors only need to provide all labor category rates for the Pool they are responding to? | Confirmed | |||
| 92 | L.11.4.2 PART 2 Oral Presentation | (including proposed subcontractors(s)/team member(s)) can perform.” Is the government using Attachment J-3 to ascertain: 1) a scoring of projects within the past 5 years that the Prime Offeror has performed that is relevant to each Task Area for scoring purposes or 2) a checkmark list of where the Prime offeror and their subcontractor(s) can perform work? These are two very different items, and the solicitation refers to both categories. We believe the Technical Corporate Experience Validation Matrix should only be item 1) above to have a basis to confirm scoring, and the solicitation needs updated in multiple places. | Please see updated scoring instruction in attachment J-3 | |
| 1. The Cover Page is marked as “Draft Request for Proposal.” Is this correct? | This has been amended | |||
| 2. The due date on Block 8 of SF1449 page 4 says 11/30/22 at 11:30, but the due date on pages 83 and 85 says 11/30/22 at 4pm. Which is the correct due time? | 4pm | |||
| Attachment J-3 with cross reference to Section L or M | 4. What is the relevance of points calculated for the J-3 Relevant Technical Experience Self-Assessment and Validation Matrix? Nowhere in Sections L or M is there an explanation or evaluation of points? | Points calculated in J-3 are then validated by oral presentations which will establish the competitive range | ||
| Attachment J-2 | According to the RFP page 6, Section B.3, the contract type is stated as either Fixed-Price (FP), Time and Materials (T&M), and/or Labor Hours (LH). However, offerors are requested to provide Direct Labor, Fringe, and Overhead, G&A breakdown on labor on Attachment J-2 Cost Price Template for ceiling rates" spreadsheet. A cost on Attachment J-2 Cost Price Template for ceiling rates" spreadsheet. A cost buildup (e.g., DL, Fringe, OH, etc.) detail is more appropriate for cost reimbursement type contracts and is not generally shown for FP or fixed hourly such as T&M/LH. Will the government consider removing the cost buildup narrative requirement on labor? | The government is asking for these to be provided should the government wish to do a cost reimbursement type task order later on | ||
| L.13 | Acknowledging that a corporate entity may only submit one prime offer, please confirm that companies may participate on multiple proposals. For example, can a company submit a proposal in its own name and also participate as a subcontract teammate (FAR 9.601(2)) on another company’s bid or as a joint venture member (FAR 9.601(1)) as part of the JV entity’s bid? | Confirmed, their OCI plan should address these partnerships | ||
| Also for Attachment J-3, Column C for all pools, please confirm that the offeror can include its subcontractor relevant projects in the submitted count? Please also confirm that if a subcontractor contract is being included it should not be counted in column D | You can include subcontractor contracts, however you cannot give yourself a point for this as you are not the prime. You would only receive one point instead of two | |||
| 9 | C.3.1 Pool A – | Are DFC data centers virtualized? If yes, who is the virtualization vendor(s)? | Yes virtualized at present(hyper converged technology) with servers and workstations. | |
| Are large business offerors required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their IDIQ proposal? | Yes | |||
| Attachment J-3 | Are offerors capped at ten relevant technical experiences per Pool or Task Area? | Per task area | ||
| N/A | N/A | Are offerors expected to only price the LCATs provided in the pricing template or can we propose additional LCATs? | Offerrors are to propose only on the LCATs provided in the pricing template | |
| Are Phase One and Part One the same thing? And, are Phase Two and Part Two the same thing? | Correct | |||
| General | Are small business competing against large businesses? | Yes | ||
| Technical question | Are there any interfaces layers or any screens? If so, what screen development tool(s) (e.g., CF, Angular, HTML, etc.) is/are used? | Visual Studio is used, visual studio code, Angular, react, etc.. as well as others may be required within future task orders and will be defined at that time. | ||
| SF1449 | Assuming that the RFP will be amended to require offerors to submit the SF1449 with the proposal, which blocks on the SF1449 are offerors required to complete? The instructions on the SF1449 require offerors to complete blocks 23 (Unit Price) and 24 (Amount.) Since “unit price” and “amount” are not applicable for this IDIQ proposal, please confirm that offerors may compliantly leave blocks 23 and 24 blank, or alternatively, write “See Attachment J-2.” | Confirmed | ||
| Attachment J-3 | Attachment J-3 does not contain any fields/columns where offerors may cite contract numbers. How will DFC confirm the accuracy of the number of contracts provided by each offeror in the “Number of Relevant Technical Experiences” column for each of the Pools? | Attachment has been edited. | ||
| all tabs | Row 1 | Attachment J-5 on all tabs states, "In Column E please place either a yes or no for whether you are a small business." Pease confirm that "you" refers to the Prime Offeror only in this instance. | Confirmed | |
| L.9.2.1. Section IX | Based on the scoring guidance, a small business could receive a total of 50 points (10 for the quals, 20 bonus for being a prime on all of them, and 20 bonus for being a small business). | Incorrect. | ||
| 90 | L.9.1 Section IX | Can an offeror use subcontractor experience when claiming points and will subcontractor experience be scored the same as the offerors experience? | This is correct | |
| 92 | L.11.4.2 | Can the government clarify how Oral Presentations will be evaluated? How does the oral evaluation compare to the technical evaluation. | See page 94 | |
| Can the Government confirm if there is an existing support contract with the database vendor for installation, upgrade, migration, patching on databases, and application servers? | Yes. | |||
| 86 | L.9.2 Instructions for Submission of Part I and II | Can the government confirm offerors responding to all 4 pools can submit one consolidated response? | No, we require a response per pool. | |
| Scoring Instructions | Can the government confirm our understanding of the scoring instructions? If the offeror has 10 relevant technical experiences in one task area, plus they are the prime on all, and a small business, 10 points would go in column C, 10 points in column D, and 20 points in column E, for a total of 40 points in column F. | Please see updated scoring instruction in attachment J-3 | ||
| 5 | L.9.1 | Can the government confirm that a cover letter is considered part of "cover pages", and therefore does not count against page limitation? | It does not count against page limitations | |
| 90 | L.9.1 Section IX | Can the government confirm that if the offeror is a small business, and the offeror is providing experiecne from a subcontractor who is another small business, the offeror can claim 2 points for the experience and another 2 points if the subcontractor performed as the prime? | Please see updated scoring instruction in attachment J-3 | |
| 90 | L.9.1 Section IX | Can the government confirm that if the offeror is a small business, and the offeror is providing experience from a subcontractor who is a large business, the offeror can claim 2 points for the experience and another 2 points if the subcontractor performed as the prime? | Please see updated scoring instruction in attachment J-3 | |
| 92 | L.11.4.2 | Can the government confirm that only the contractors deemed to be one of the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price would participate in Part 2, Oral Presentation? | No | |
| 38 | H.10(c) | Can the Government confirm that this provision does not require a Contractor to bid on all task orders issued under the pool for which the Contractor holds contract? | It does not require them to bid | |
| Can the Government confirm the document/records repository tool and reporting tool that is currently in use? | HPECM one of the record management tools. | |||
| all tabs | all | Can the government please clarify the intent of the Brand Name J&A at the IDIQ level and why it will be deleted at award? | No, please read the J&A | |
| 15 | C.3.3.4 | Can the government please clarify what would fulfill the requirement to respond to a FOIA or E-Discovery request? There is not detailed information regarding this task, please clarify how that would pertain to cyber and what work would be necessary to fulfill this task. | CISO office will provide additional detail on future task orders | |
| 5&7 | B.1 & B.5 | Can the Government please clarify whether the shared ceiling dollar amount for all orders under CFESSS is $250,000,000 or $300,000,000? Currently sections B.1 and B.5 identify contradictory amounts. | The ceiling is $300,000,000 | |
| 99 | M.6 | Can the Government please confirm our understanding that Phase Two as used in this provision is the same as Part 2 – Oral Presentations in Section L.8? In other words that the Government may create a competitive range for those offerors that are invited to oral presentations. | Incorrect. All Offerors must give an Oral presentation. A competitive range will be established after the oral presentations. | |
| 34 | H.3 Advertisements, Publicizing Awards and News Releases | Can the Government please confirm that restrictions in this paragraph would not prevent the Contractor from referencing the work performed under this contract as part of a past performance or corporate experience submission to the Government in future procurements. | Awardees can reference this as past performance for future procurments | |
| 33 | G.10 | Can the Government please confirm that the conformed version of the Master Contract that will be posted for the general public will remove or redact any confidential information of the awardee(s)? | Confirmed | |
| Technical question | Can the Government please confirm the status of its cloud implementation? | DFC is a cloud first agency and constantly looking to migrate anything to the cloud. Future task orders will define this. | ||
| DFC+OIT+IDIQ+CFESS+77344423Q0005 (Pool A – Operations) | Can the Government provide any details on average number of tickets for each support tier per month? | average 1001 tickets per month | ||
| General question | Can the government provide more detailed Architecture diagrams of Salesforce integrations? | More specifics on EA will be provided at task order releases if needed. | ||
| General question | Can the government share the current number of contractor FTEs on Pool C? | This depends on the Task order requirement itself. More information at TO releases. | ||
| 94 | Rules of Engagement for Oral Presentations | Can vendors delete the tabs for the pools for which they are not responding prior to submission? For example, if a vendor only wants to respond to Pool A, can they delete the tabs for Pool B, Pool C and Pool D prior to submitting the Technical Corporate Experience Self-Assessment Matrix to the Government? | Vendors may do so if they please | |
| 98 | Section M.4.1 | Can we use subcontracting experience as relevant experience if bidding as a prime? | Yes you may | |
| 98 | Section M.4.1 | Clarification on number of relevant technical experiences submitted: 10 per pool? 10 in total? And can we reuse experiences across pools? | You may reuse experiences and you may submit ten per task area | |
| 84 | L.9.1 | Could the Government please specifiy which files are expected in each "volume"? | Volume changed to section | |
| L.9.2.1. Section IX | Does a vendor have to score all tasks in a specific pool to be considered compliant or can a vendor only score those tasks relevant to their technical experience? | A vendor can score only those relevan tto their experience | ||
| Does the DFC intend to record the Oral Presentations, enabling the DFC panelists to review and reference the presentation, to make their final evaluations? | Orals will be recorded | |||
| DFC+OIT+IDIQ+CFESS+77344423Q0005 (Pool A – Operations) | Does the Government have any indication on the number of users within DFC? | Approx 672 total (539 federal employees, PSC's, interners, detailees, etc, & 133 contractors) | ||
| 84 | L.9.1 | Does the Government require Sections I through VIII to be submitted as one, combined PDF? Or separate, individual PDFs? | Separate individual PDFs | |
| Does the scope of work include maintenance of and solutions including Wireless / Mobile connectivity, Telecommunication services. From our perspective the mobility infrastructure is more aligned with IT Operations than Application Development. Would the Government consider moving this requirement under Pool A? | See Pool A | |||
| 93 | L.11.4.2 | During Part 4 of the Oral Presentation, will the scenario based questions relate only to the Prime Offeror's contracts since Orals attendees are limited to the Prime Offeror only? | The scenario based questions will relate to the work being proposed on and any of the experience presented | |
| General | For competition under the resultant IDIQ contract, will some Task Orders be set-aside only for Small Businesses? Does the government anticipate any socio-economic set-asides for Task Order competition? | This is up to the discretion of the TACO | ||
| 90 | L.9.2.1, Section IX | For the points calculation in the Technical Corporate Experience Self-Assessment Matrix, is this calculation correct? If not, would the Government please explain what is correct? We as the Prime Offeror (a large business) have 6 contracts relevant to a PWS Task Area, and our subcontractor teammate (a small business) has 4 relevant contracts for which they are the prime. Our points total is 38 points. (1 point * (6 contracts held by Prime Offeror + 4 contracts held by subcontractor teammate))+ (2 points for being the prime contractor on referenced contract * 10 contracts) + (2 points for being a small business * 4 contracts) = 38 points | Please see updated scoring instruction in attachment J-3 | |
| 90 | L.9.2.1, Section IX | For the points calculation in the Technical Corporate Experience Self-Assessment Matrix, is this calculation correct? If not, would the Government please explain what is correct? | ||
| We as the Prime Offeror (a large business) have 10 contracts relevant to a PWS Task Area, and we are the prime on each. Our points total is 30 points. (1 point * 10 contracts) + (2 points * 10 contracts) = 30 points | Incorrect, you have ten contracts that you are the prime on. That would be 20 points. Each prime experience for a large business is two points. | |||
| 90 | L.9.2.1, Section IX | For the points calculation in the Technical Corporate Experience Self-Assessment Matrix, is this calculation correct? If not, would the Government please explain what is correct? | ||
| We as the Prime Offeror (a large business) have 10 contracts relevant to a PWS Task Area, and we are the prime on 6 of them. Our points total is 22 points. (1 point * 10 contracts) + (2 points * 6 contracts) = 22 points | Incorrect, for the prime contracts you would get two points each. You are the prime on six of them so you would get twelve points for those. You have relevant experience on the other four so you would get four points. You would have sixteen points total. | |||
| 90 | L.9.2.1, Section IX | For the points calculation in the Technical Corporate Experience Self-Assessment Matrix, is this calculation correct? If not, would the Government please explain what is correct? | ||
| We as the Prime Offeror (a large business) have 6 contracts relevant to a PWS Task Area, and our subcontractor teammate (a large business) has 4 relevant contracts for which they are the prime. Our points total is 30 points. (1 point * 10 contracts) + (2 points * 10 contracts) = 30 points | Incorrect, you have six relevant contract experiences where you were not the prime (six points) and you have a team mate which has four relevant experiences where they were the prime ( eight points). You have 14 points. | |||
| 96 | M.2 | Given that the RFP states, "Offerors with limited capabilities may obtain a contract if they are the only firm capable of performing a PWS element, or if they demonstrate a high level of technical merit or proficiency for a subset of the PWS elements," will awards be made at the Pool level or will some awards limit BPA scope to the individual Task Areas within the Pools? | Awardees who are deemed to be of high technical merit for individual task areas may receive an award. | |
| Technical question | Has implementation started or are applications in a hosted environment? | Hybrid at point in time. | ||
| L.9.2.1. Section IX | Having a pool of large and small businesses would support the level of competition and breadth and depth of experience that the Government is seeking. For example, based on the current scoring instructions, it appears that large prime vendors have a maximum total of 30 points per task whereas small prime vendors have a maximum total of 50 points per task. If this is not the Government’s intention, please clarify the scoring instructions. | Incorrect, Large businesses have the potential for 20 points per task area and small businesses have the potential for 40 points per task area. | ||
| General | How many of the pool specific task requirements are required to receive the points for a contract in the Technical Corporate Experience Validation Matrix (Attachment J-3)? For example, does an offeror’s relevant experience contract need to address a minimum number of requirements (e.g., 6 of the 16 for pool D) to be able to claim the full points for a relevant experience contract (4 points if a small business prime)? | One Task | ||
| General | How will the Government use the points from the Technical Corporate Experience Validation Matrix (Attachment J-3) in their evaluation (e.g., will the highest scoring companies receive an IDIQ award)? | See section M | ||
| If a subcontractor contract is included in the Column C count/quantity as part of a Small Business prime proposal response (again, Attachment J-3 all pools), is the subcontractor’s contract also included in column E (small business). For example: | Yes | |||
| Attachment J-3 Relevant Technical Experience and Self Assessment Validation Matrix | If a subcontractor on the team is a Small Business with a relevant Prime contract, will the assessment award the 2 extra points as mentioned in the scoring instructions if their performance is highlighted even if the prime offeror is an OTSB? | No, the points system is based off of the prime contractor. | ||
| L.9.2.1. Section IX | If partial scoring is acceptable, can the Government clarify the scoring process with an example? | Partial scoring is not acceptable | ||
| N/A | N/A | If questions are not answered by Friday, November 18, will the government extend the proposal due date to two weeks after modifications are finalized and released? | No | |
| 97 | M.3.1 Part 1 | If the government desires Organizational Effectiveness, Task Order Management, and Project Oversight to be addressed in the Executive Summary, can it please clarify that intent through modification to the RFP within the instructions? | This will be refelcted in an amendment to the solicitation | |
| 94 | L.11.4.2.1 | If the offeror is providing 10 experiences for each task area, and there are 11 task areas in a pool, should the offeror discuss each project during the oral presenation to score the maximum points? This may not be possible in the allotted time as there may be upto a 110 projects that may need to be discussed. | They should discuss each project in the allotted time. Some projects may overlap task areas | |
| 94 | L.11.4.2.1 | If the Oral Presentation is to validate an Offeror's Self Evaluation Matrix. Will Orals be briefing all relevant experience or answering any questions that the supporting documentation, PWS, was not clear on? | Orals will be used to brief all relevant experience and to answer clarifying questions to that experience. | |
| 90, 94 | L.9.2.1, Section IX, | |||
| L.11.4.2 | If the Technical Corporate Experience evaluated may contain subcontractor corporate experience. Can the government clarify why subcontractor personnel are not be able to participate in the oral presentation to support their corporate experience provided? | Ammended, Offeror's may choose to bring the team to best demonstrate their experience as long as it does not exceed three participants, see page 93 | ||
| L.9.2.1. Section IX | In reference to the scoring of the individual tasks for each pool, is there a specific weight given to each task or are all tasks weighted equally? | All tasks are weighted equally | ||
| 6 | B.4 | In section B.4 Task Order Pricing, the Government states: "Exceptions where the TACO has the flexibility to exceed contracting ceiling rates including special security clearances (see www.state.gov/security-clearances) and other circumstances deemed “extraordinary” by the TACO." Given that, should the offeror's pricing factor-in clearnaces for the various LCATs? | The Offeror's pricing should factor in everything that would go into the highest labor rate for each category | |
| 21 | F.4 | In section F.4, the Government stated that "Place of performance shall be set forth in the individual task or delivery orders." Further down in that same line the government stated that "Any 'onsite' work at DFC facilities shall take place at : U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), 1100 New York Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20527." Is this address the only address that onsite work will be completed under all task and delivery orders? | This is correct. Remote work may be done but all onsite work will be done at DFC Headquarters, 1100 New York Ave, NW | |
| L.9.2.1 Part 1 Section II - Solitication Documents (Page 87 of IDIQ document) | In Section II, the government requests form SF33 to be filled out and signed by the offeror. Is this in addition to SF1449 attached in "Section A - Solicitation Contract Form" of the IDIQ document or are they substitutes? | They are substitutes | ||
| 92 | L.11.4.2 | In section L.11.4.2, the Government states that "Offerors will present on the information submitted in the self-assessment matrix. They will present on the task areas that they can perform, proving they have the experience stated in the matrix." Is any other relevant expereience documentation anticipated to be required? | No | |
| In solicitation # 77344423Q0005 for United States International Development Finance Corporation Office of Information Technology (OIT), Cloud First Enterprise Systems Support Services (CFESSS), under FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Alternate II) is incorporated by reference on page 45. | They are required at the IDIQ level | |||
| 7 | Attachment J-1 Labor Categories; Labor Category Level Description Table | In the description table on page 6, the Level III has a Typical Educational Requirement of a “Master’s to Ph.D.” with a minimum of 5 years of experience. Many “senior” resources do not possess a Master’s or Ph.D. degree. The “Education Requirements” on page 7 provides equivalency of years of experience for an advanced degree (e.g., master’s and doctoral degrees are equivalent to four years of experience). This equivalency substitution does not provide equivalency of a degree based on additional years of experience. Please amend the “Educational Requirements” to state “Four years of experience beyond the ‘Typical Year’s Experience’ are equivalent to a Master’s degree.” The same would go for the Level IV “Senior Subject Matter Expert”. | Please see ammended attachment J-1 | |
| General question | Is DFC’s long term goal to migrate all systems to Cloud? Or will some of the systems remain on premise? | Yes, We are a Cloud First Agency | ||
| 90 | L.9.2.1, Section IX, | Is small business the only socioeconomic status the government is evaluating for? | Yes, small business is the only SES that the government is evaluating ofr | |
| 10 | C.3.1.1 | Is the Contactor required to provide SLA’s at time of TO proposal or is this going to be generated as part of the TO request? Are the SLA’s percentages/penalties negotiable? Is earn back a potential? Will Contractor and DFC jointly develop the calculations/metrics for reporting SLA’s? | This depends on the Pool, and the future ask of the task order itself. DFC envisions SLAs to be part of many of the future task orders and will be defined at the time of task order release. Additionally, the Task order may ask of Quality Assurance and Surveillance metrics to be suggested and agreed upon. We invison DFC and the contractor jointly develping the SLA parameters. | |
| 90, 98 | L.9.2.1, Section IX, | |||
| M.4.1, | L.9.2.1, Section IX and M.4.1 have conflicting task order size ranges. Can the government confirm that the task order size range is between $10,000 annd $15,000,000, per section M.4.1? | Confirmed that the task order size range from $10,000 to $15,000,000 | ||
| 94 | Rules of Engagement for Oral Presentations | listed in the solicitation. For consistency across all offers received, can the Government provide a template for the Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan that all vendors can use? | No | |
| L.9.1 – Format | May offerors assume that the slides for the presentation do NOT have to be 508 compliant? | Confirmed | ||
| 90 | Section IX, paragraph 3 | Please confirm that a Small Business can receive a maximum of 40 points for each “Task Area”. Thus, for Pool A, there are 14 Task Areas and Small Businesses could receive a total of 560 points (40 points x 14 Task Areas [C.3.1.1 to C.3.1.14]). | This is correct. | |
| 90 | Section IX, paragraph | Please confirm that ALL Corporate Experience (Relevant Technical Experience) projects used to justify the points can ONLY be from the Prime offeror and cannot be from the Prime’s subcontractor(s). It is necessary that the Government only evaluate the Relevant Experience of the Small Business Primes, as allowing Corporate Experience (Relevant Technical Experience) projects from subcontractors will not result in the Government selecting the most competent Small Business primes. | No, review section IX | |
| 90 | Section IX, paragraph 3 | Please confirm that in the sentence “The Offeror will give themselves an extra two points per technical experience if they are a Small Business.”, “extra” should be deleted, as Small Businesses do NOT receive the one point for the prior sentence. | This is correct and the word extra has been deleted. | |
| 90 | Section IX, paragraph 1 | Please confirm that the Corporate Experience (Relevant Technical Experience) has to be within 5 years of solicitation release. Thus, they must be from for contracts ending on November 4, 2017 or be on-going. | Confirmed | |
| 90 | Section IX, paragraph 3 | Please confirm that the sentence “Therefore, if the Offeror has performed the task area on ten separate contracts, they would rate themselves as a ten.” only applies to Large Businesses. It should be reworded to state “Therefore, if a Large Business has performed...” | This is correct and has been fixed in section IX | |
| 86 | L.9 Format and Instructions for Proposal Submission |
L.9.2 Instructions for Submission of Part I and II
| L.9.2.1. PART 1 (c) Proposal Validity | Please confirm the proposal validity shall be for no less than 365 days from the proposal due date. | Confirmed | ||
| 37 | H.10 Limitations Future Contracting | |||
| (b) Restrictions | Please confirm the reference to "DOC" is meant to state "DFC" instead. | Confirmed, DOC is a type and should read "DFC" | ||
| 91 | L.9.2.1 Section X | Pricing Template instructions state that the “offeror shall refer to any comparable rates” in order to provide reasonableness of the rates. We respectfully ask that the cost build up is removed from the submission documentation since adequate competition and comparable rates can be used to evaluate offeror’s proposed rates. | Offeror's must produce an audit from a cognizant federal auditor in lieu of submitting the required documents or they have an FPRA from another federal agency. | |
| 69 |
88 K.1 FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference
L.9.2.1. PART 1
| Section V – Professional Employee Compensation Plan | Pursuant to 'FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees', how will the Professional Employee Compensation Plan be evaluated? | pass/fail | ||
| DFC+OIT+IDIQ+CFESS+77344423Q0005 (Pool A – Operations) | Related to C.3.2.5 Oversee the installation, upgrade, migration, patching, management, monitoring, performance tuning, enhancements, functionality improvements and innovations, and backup and recovery operations applications, website, programs, and platforms on the DFC network. – Do the Government have any indication on the number of systems we are responsible for maintaining? | Printer,s 31, physical servers, 25, virtual servers, 198, network devices 25, wireless Aps 25 | ||
| 9 | C.3 | Section C.3 states, "When orders are issued that cover multiple tasks across pools, they will be solicited to the pool that will perform the preponderance of work." Would the government give an example or clarification of how orders that are issued that cover multiple tasks across pools will be solicited to the pool that will perform the preponderance of work? | This will be left to the discretion of the TACO | |
| 84 and 97 | L.9, M.3.1 Part 1 | Section L and M reference section L.11.2.1, is this intended to reference Section L.9.2.1? | Yes, this change has been made in the ammendment | |
| Section L.9.1 | Section L.9.1 Format. The sentence above the table says “Offeror’s proposals must consist of Volume I through V, as set forth in the below Table:” However, the table includes 11 sections (Section I through Section XI) but it does not specify which Sections go in which Volumes. Will the Government be providing an updated Table to specify which Sections go in which Volumes? | Volume changed to section | ||
| M.4.1 Technical Corporate Experience (Factor 1) | Section M say, “An Offeror will only be given a score of 10 if they have 10 relevant technical experiences to support their score for each task area that they are competing for.” Are Offerors competing at the “task area” level or are offerors competing at the Pool level? | Task are and pool level | ||
| 97 | M.3.1 | Section M.3.1 instructs Offerors to demonstrate its understanding of and proposed method for performing 1) Organizational Effectiveness, 2) Task Order Management, and 3) Project Oversight. In which section of the Phase I submission should we provide information on these three elements? | This should be submitted in section I (Executive Summary) | |
| all tabs | L.9.2.1., Section X, 1. | Section X, 1. on Page 91 states that Offerors should provide "fully burdened hourly rates (rounded to the nearest dollar) for each labor category and year of performance". However, Attachment J-2 requires Offerors to include direct labor rates as well as indirect cost rates. The requirements in the Instructions on Page 91 related to Attachment J-2 are to provide rationale for how the rates were developed and how they were considered rational which does not require a breakdown of all direct and indirect costs. Given the requirements set forth in the solicitation, would the government clarify whether completion of Attachment J-2 and the direct and indirect costs is required? Or, would the completion of Attachment J-6 and the rationale for how rates were developed and considered reasonable suffice? | We will remove the requirement for certified Cost and Pricing Data, however all Offeror's must demonstrate that that all pricing is reasonable. This will be compared to certified or historic pricing to prove that submitted rates are reasonable. See FAR 15.402(a)2iiA | |
| General | Sections L.9.2.2 - L.11.4.1 are missing from the RFP. Can the government please provide clarification? | Our numbering had an error. Will be fixed by amendment | ||
| 90 | L.9.2.1, Section IX | services set forth in the PWS to be considered for award." Will maximizing points in "some" task areas within a Pool suffice to demonstrate "depth" in that category or is the government evaluating points at a total Pool level to determine which offerors will be considered eligible for award? | The government advises Offeror's to submit capability for all task areas that an Offeror has experience in. | |
| 1 | Attachment J-3 Relevant Tech. Experience Self-Assessment Matrix | Should column C (Number of Relevant Technical Experiences) specify the “quantity” of experiences for each Task Area (C.3.X.X) or the “contract/Task Order number” of each Relevant Technical Experience? | Column C should list out the quantity of experiences and the Contract or task order number | |
| 1 | Attachment J-3 Relevant Tech. Experience Self-Assessment Matrix | Should column D (Prime) specify the “quantity” of experiences for each Task Area (C.3.X.X) where the Offeror was the Prime or the “contract/Task Order number” of each Relevant Technical Experience where the Offeror was the Prime? | Column D should list out the quantity of experiences and the task order number | |
| Pool A-D Tabs | Column E | Should Column E be a single answer ("yes" or "no") related to the Prime Offeror's small business size status, or is this intended to be an individual designation of the size status of the representative offeror for each individual reference? | This is where the offeror will designate the size status for each individual reference | |
| 1 | Attachment J-3 Relevant Tech. Experience Self-Assessment Matrix | Should column F (Total) specify the total points for each Task Area (C.3.X.X)? For example, if a Small Business had two relevant contracts for a Task Area (one as a Prime Small Business and a second as a Subcontractor) the “Total” would be 6 points (each gets 2 points for being a Small Business and 2 additional points for the task order where the Small Business was the Prime). | This is correct | |
| L.9.2.1, page 87 | solicitation/contract form (SF-33)…” However, the RFP does not seem to include an SF33. Instead, the RFP includes an SF1449. Please confirm which Forms are required to be submitted with the proposal. | The 1449 is required, the change has been made in the amendment | ||
| J-3 Relevant Technical Corporate Experience | Tasks in the Matrix specifically reference services performed for DFC. May offerors assume that we may score points for contracts that provide relevant services to other federal agencies? | Confirmed | ||
| Technical question | The draft SOW references “Cybersecurity Monitoring Function require 10 hours x 5 days a week (Monday – Friday)”. Will DFC require the same level of service for SOC operations? | This will depend on need at time of task order award. | ||
| 97 | M.3.1, | The evaluation criteria listed in M.3.1 (1. Organizational Effectiveness, 2. Task Order Manager, 3. Project Oversight) does not align to the Part 1 instructions in L.9.2.1. Can the government please clarify where the offeror should present the 3 items listed in evaluation criteria? If the government requests that it be part of the 3-page executive summary, would you consider allowing for more pages to clearly respond to these 3 items? | We will allow for six pages in the executive summary to explain these items | |
| 5 | Attachment J-1 Labor Categories | The example roles within many of the Labor Categories have specialty areas/roles that vary greatly. For example, in Pool D, Category 1: IT Specialist, the example roles vary from Technical Writer to Cloud Architect. Cloud Architects get paid 30% to 40% more than Technical Writers. Thus, please confirm that offerors are to price the highest role within each labor category at each level. | Confirmed | |
| The Government asks the offeror to list contracts in column C and then further delineate whether the contracts were performed as a prime and whether the offeror is a small business. Are any contract details to be submitted, or is the offeror simply required to indicate the quantity of relevant contracts? | Contract number is required | |||
| Fully Burdened Labor Rates | The government references Attachment J-6 in the solicitation to provide fully burdened labor rates (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). However, Attachment J-6 is not provided. Would the government please provide Attachment J-6 for Offerors to complete? | J-6 is J-2. This is a typo and will be adjusted in the amendment. | ||
| Attachment J-3 with cross reference to Section L or M | The instructions for J-3 Relevant Technical Experience Self-Assessment and Validation Matrix includes 1 point if you are the prime for the Technical Experience but it is not stated in Sections L or M should we follow J-3 Instructions? | Follow the instructions in J-3 | ||
| 86 | L.9.2.1, Section I | The instructions related to the Executive Summary require no information related to the offeror's technical capabilities or approaches within associated pool areas. Is the current scope of information outlined in Section L.9.2.1, Section 1, a-d all that is required and requested by the government? | Yes | |
| REFERENCE (FEB 1998), page 79 | The instructions state that, “The maximum number of points per Category is 40 points.” What is a “Category?” The word “Category” is capitalized, as if it is a defined term. Does Category mean “Pool” or “Task Area” or something different? | Category should be changed to task area, change has been made in J-3 | ||
| 84 | L.9.1 | The Instructions state, "Offeror’s proposals must consist of Volumes I through V, as set forth in the below Table…" Question: are there volumes III, IV, and V? We only see I and II referenced on page 83. | Volume one is changed to Section I through VIII, Volume II is changed to Section IX and X | |
| 21 | F.2 Period of Performance & Attachment J-2 Cost-Price | The order period is stated as 5 years, with Task Orders being able to run for 5 years. The cost-price spreadsheet requests pricing for 15 years. Is this a 5-year IDIQ or a 10-year IDIQ, as pricing for a 5-year IDIQ should only be for 10 total years? | amended to reflect a 5 year IDIQ, pricing is needed for ten years. | |
| 96 | M.2 | The RFP currently states that offerors will be determined to be Highest Technically Rated based on “Relevant Technical Experience and Management Approach.” However, neither the Section L instructions nor Section M evaluation criteria clarify what elements of proposal will be considered as part of an offeror’s “Management Approach”. Can the Government therefore either revised M.2 to remove this reference or revise M.4 to clarify how “Management Approach” will be evaluated? | The management approach is pass/fail | |
| L.11.4.2 | The SAM.gov site for CFESSS shows a link for Attachment J-5 Link to Industry Day Slides and Recordings. We are unable to access this via the link. Would the government provide an attachment or another option to access this information? | See uploaded documents to Ammendment | ||
| L.1 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY | The Solicitation contains CAR 1352.215-70 Proposal Preparation (APR 2010). To the extent that the instructions in CAR 1352.215-70, differ from those in Section L, which instructions are controlling? Alternatively, we recommend removing CAR 1352.215-70 from the Solicitation to avoid any confusion and to allow the Solicitation’s requirements to stand on their own. | Removed | ||
| 97 | M.3.1 PART 1 | The solicitation states "In its PART 1 submission, the Offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of and proposed method for performing the following elements…organizational effectiveness, task order management and project oversight." Can DFC confirm there is no requirement to include narratives on organizational effectiveness, task order management and project oversight since it is not included in Section L, instructions? | Narratives are not required. | |
| The solicitation states “In the Self Scoring Matrix; Offeror’s will score themselves 1-10 on each task area in each pool they are bidding on.” The instructions in this sentence seem contradictory to the instructions in the next paragraph of the solicitation. Thus, should offerors score themselves on a scale of 1 to 10 OR score themselves based upon the score weighting instructions in Section IX, paragraph 2? | Please see updated scoring instruction in attachment J-3 | |||
| 90 | Section IX, paragraph 2 | The solicitation states “Rather, offerors shall refer to relevant technical performance referencing up to ten past contracts to substantially support their self score during their Oral Presentations”. Is this ten TOTAL experiences OR ten experiences for each of the Pool specific Task Areas (e.g., if Pool A has 14 Task Areas the offeror can have a total of 140 different experience, a unique one for each task area)? | This is ten experiences per task area. | |
| L.9.1, Format, page 86, Section X – Pricing Template, page 93 | The table in L.9.1 states Section X – Pricing Template (Attachment J-2), format Excel Template. However, on page 93, instructions state, “Information on how the rates in Attachment J-2 were developed and the rationale why the Offeror considers them to be reasonable. Offerors shall describe comprehensively and in detail how the rates were developed to eliminate or at least minimize the need for clarification questions by the Government as it reviews the price proposals.” Will the Government please provide instructions on where to include the pricing narrative? | Please include it in the pricing template | ||
| 84 | L.9.1, | The table presented in L.9.1 has various references that do not align to the RFP. Can the government please provide clarification on the sections referenced, L.11.2.1, L.11.2.2, L.11.4.4, M.4.1.1, and M.4.2? | ||
| 15 | C 3.2.4 | This scope is for Cloud only? Or both Cloud and on-premise? | Expectations that this objective will have a cloud first focus | |
| 15 | C 3.2.5 | This scope is for Cloud only? Or both Cloud and on-premise? | Expectations that this objective will have a cloud first focus, at present time some systems may be on-prem with a hybrid env. Future Task orders will define at point in time. | |
| 15 | C 3.2.6 | This scope is for Cloud only? Or both Cloud and on-premise? | Hybrid at point in time. | |
| 37 | H.10 Limitations Future Contracting | |||
| (b) Restrictions | This section of the RFP indicates the work under this contract, is for "engineering and/or technical direction". Please confirm contract performance by the winning bid would be solely of an advisory role, and would not involve "development, integration, assembly and checkout, or production" is applicable to only Pool D. | The intent is not development as that would fall under a different pool | ||
| This section of the solicitation states that, “During Part 4 of Oral Presentations the Government may ask scenario based questions to gain a further understanding of the Offeror’s capabilities that they have gained through their referenced experiences.” Does the Government intend to allow vendors to “caucus” for a brief period of time (e.g., 10 minutes) before responding to the questions posed? | No | |||
| 89 | Section VII – Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan | This section of the solicitation states that, “For DFC, the Offeror shall submit a Professional Employee Compensation Plan that addresses the Offeror’s methodology for determining salaries and fringe benefits for their professional employees in preparation of future task order requirements under DFC. Submission of general compensation practices often printed in an employee handbook is sufficient.” For consistency across all offers received, can the Government either provide a template for the Professional Employee Compensation Plan, or simply allow vendors to submit general compensation practices? | General compensation package is allowed | |
| This section of the solicitation states that, “The Offeror may not generally ask questions during the oral presentation. Any questions asked must be directed to the Contracting Officer, and should only deal with logistics and conduct of the oral presentation.” Please confirm that the offeror can ask clarifying questions (e.g., questions to verify understanding of the question being asked before answering) during the oral presentation. | Yes | |||
| 13 | C.3.2.9 | This section of the statement of work states that the Pool B contractors may be asked to “[s]upport DFC’s wireless mobility solutions, including but not limited to CONUS/OCONUS, facilities and remote requirements for Wireless Carriers Services.” Can the Government clarify whether such support would require to provide OCONUS services and, if so, where such services may be required? | DFC has CONUS services but a lot of international travelers who require OCONUS services | |
| L.9.2.1. Section IX | To simplify the scoring process and remain equitable, will the Government consider having two scoring tracks ----one for small businesses and one for large businesses? | No | ||
| Attachment J-2 CostPrice Template for Ceiling Rates | We consider the breakdown of our Direct Labor Rate, Fringe Benefits, Overhead, G&A, and Profit sensitive competitive information. Would the Government accept a fully burdened rate per LCAT over 10 years to accommodate for the performance period of the IDIQ? |
Are there other justifications we can provide to explain the reasonability of our Fully Burdened Rates without disclosing sensitive competitive information?
| The government is removing the posibility of cost orders from theis IDIQ and thus this information does not need to be provided. | |||
| 92 | Sections L.10 through L.11.4.1 | We noticed that Sections L.10 through L.11.4.1 are not present in RFP; can DFC provide in Amendment 1? | Our numbering had an error. Will be fixed by amendment |
| 66 | DFC-008 IT Work Product Clause | We respectfully request that the Government remove this clause. By giving the Government ownership, as opposed to unrestricted rights in, all data and documents developed under this contract this provision conflicts with the rights provided under FAR 52.227-14 and may inadvertently discourage the Contractor from utilizing its best technology under this contract because it could risk losing control of its existing IP. | Request Denied |
| 37-38 | H.10(b) - Restrictions | We would respectfully request that the Government remove this paragraph for the time being and address any specific preclusions at the task order level. Given the wide range of services sought under the various pools, the broad preclusion found in the paragraph may not be necessary for certain work streams and could unduly restrict the Government’s future access to contractors working under this contract who may be best positioned to support the Government in the future. | Request Denied |
| Attachment J-3 Relevant Technical Experience and Self Assessment Validation Matrix |
L.9.2.1 Part 1 Section IX Technical Corporate Experience Self-Assessment Matrix (Page 90 of IDIQ Document)
L.11.4.2.1 Part 2 Relevant Techincal Experience (Page 94 of IDIQ Document) What are the expectations of the Government for Past Performance documentation in Part 1 of the RFP bid? Will offerors be required to give a full PPQ style response for each contract we wish to showcase as justification for scoring? What kind of evidence would be needed for each contract (CPARS, references, etc.)?
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. Updated .