Attachment 5 - Draft RFP Questions and Answers Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911QX23R0002P1
About this file
This document provides a matrix of questions and answers related to a draft request for proposals (RFP) for analytical services. The RFP seeks proposals to perform analytical services supporting target descriptions, vulnerability and survivability studies, kinetic and non-kinetic weapon effectiveness assessments, and the Joint Live Fire program. Key details include that the solicitation number is W911QX23R0002P1, the issuing agency is the Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground, and the work involves classified information up to the Secret level. The document clarifies requirements and evaluation criteria referenced in the draft RFP, such as clarifying that technical factors apply to both the base PWS and sample task, and that resumes for key personnel are only required at the task order level. It also provides additional context on security clearance requirements and the treatment of redacted information in proposals.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
Draft RFP CRM
| ANALYTICAL SERVICES DRAFT RFP Question Matrix [W911QX23R0002] | |||||
| # | Document In Question (PWS, Solicitation, Cover letter, Attachment etc.) | Page # & or Para # of Document In Question | Question, Comment or Recommendation | ||
| (Note: use "Wrap Text") | Government's Response to Industry | ||||
| 1 | Draft RFP | Draft RFP Paragraph # | Draft RFP Questions, Comments, and Suggestions | ||
| 2 | Sample Task | 3.7 | Does task 3.7 request a physical arena test for data or vulnerability analysis of existing data? | The intent of Sample Task Paragraph 3.7 is propose an approach focused on capturing weapon warhead characterization effects (e.g., fragmentation, blast, etc.), which can have different approaches (e.g., methods, governing standards). | |
| 3 | Section L Instructions | L.2 | Can you please provide clarification on what is required in Section L.2, which states “The Offeror shall submit two (2) digital copies of the proposal, per company (one (1) company shall be redacted)?" | The language has been updated to read "on one (1) of the submitted copies the company information shall be redacted". This will allow the Government to send the redacted proposals to the evaluation teams immediately after the solicitation closes to begin the evaluation process. | |
| 4 | Draft RFP | Section C.7.2.3 | Is this section focused on modeling collateral damage from weapons or psychological and psychophysical effects of weapons on personnel? Could this section delete the psychological and psychophysical? | Have modified the wording to focus the primary aspects of the requirement on primary effects. "Evaluate the collateral damage primary effects from weapons and the secondary effects such as psychological and psychophysical effects to estimate the contribution to system performance. May also include analysis and evaluation of effectiveness of suppressive fire, collateral damage (physical or psychological effects) from impacting near personnel." | |
| 5 | Draft RFP | Section C.7.3.2 | What are cyber capabilities employing high-speed photographic techniques? | This was a typo by the Government on combining multiple requirements in original draft RFP. Wording should be "Conduct detailed experimental investigations of various detonation and effect processes for kinetic and non-kinetic weapons employment to include, but not limited to: cyber capabilities, employing high-speed photographic techniques, laser photography, and digital instrumentation." | |
| 6 | Sample Task | Sample task order | Will the sample task order in the RFP be awarded to a company or is it being used only to evaluation proposals? | The intent is not to award sample task order, but use as a mechanism for proposal evaluation. | |
| 7 | Sample Task | Section 3.7 | Does the government desire arena testing to include instrumentation and documentation to be at the level of JTCG-ME guidelines? | The intent of sample Task Paragraph 3.7 is propose an approach focused on capturing weapon warhead characterization effects (e.g., fragmentation, blast, etc.), which can have different approaches (e.g., methods, governing standards). | |
| 8 | Sample Task | Sample task order | The sample task order mentions "provided labor categories" - will the government provide labor categories in the final RFP? | The Government is not going to provide specific labor category suggestions. The Contractor is expected to provide labor categories and skill sets to address their technical approach at a task order level. | |
| 9 | RFP | Page 22, Paragraph C.12.5 | Will the Government please confirm that Small Business Utilization Reports are not required to be submitted by companies that qualify as a small business under NAICS code 541715. | Small Businesses will provide a Small Business Utilization Reports as required by Paragraph C.12.5 based on their Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet with further guidance provided within the DD1423 CDRL A001 Attachment 3 of the RFP. | |
| 10 | RFP | Page 23, Paragraph C.15 | This section references a Property Management Plan that is required to be submitted with the proposal. However, Section L does not reference a requirement for a Property Management Plan. Will the Government please confirm the Property Management Plan is not required for submission in the MA IDIQ proposal. | The proposal states that a Property Management Plan shall be submitted no later than 60-days after contract award. A Property Management Plan will be required only if the task order provides GFP/CAP and the instructions of this paragraph become effective. Note: These instructions are required to be implemented in all cost type contracts by the FAR. | |
| 11 | RFP | Page 30, Paragraph H.10 | The Government references key personnel in this section but Section L does not indicate a requirement for any key personnel to be proposed at the MA IDIQ level (e.g, IDIQ Program Manager). Will the Government please confirm that key personnel are only to be proposed at the task order level. | The Government does not require any Key Personnel to be identified at the MA IDIQ level. It is correct assumption that the Government confirms that Key Personnel are only to be proposed at the task order level. Note: Master contract clauses flow-down to the task order level. |
| 12 | RFP | Page 34, Paragraph H.14 | The Governent recommends small businesses consider teaming arrangements with other small businesses and submission of an offer as a small business. However, the draft RFP does not indicate there will be awards set-aside for small businesses. Will the Government please confirm there will be IDIQ awards set-aside for businesses that qualify as small under NAICS code 541715 and task orders that are set-aside for competition among those small business award awardees. | A.1 Executive Summary paragraph 6 states "In the interest of increasing competition through Small Business participation, the Government shall reserve three (3) awards of all basic awards for Small Businesses whose proposals are within the competitive range". Note: No task(s) shall be reserved for Small Business on this MA IDIQ. |
| 13 | Section L | Page 1, Paragraph L.2 | This section states that the Offeror shall submit two digital copies of the proposal, one with the company name redacted. Will the Government please confirm that the company name is to be redacted only from the technical volume. | The language has been updated to read "on one (1) of the submitted copies the company information shall be redacted". This will allow the Government to send the redacted proposals to the evaluation teams immediately after the solicitation closes to begin the evaluation process. |
| 14 | Section L | Page 4, Paragraph L.4 | Will the Government please clarify whether the technical volume is only intended to address the sample task PWS requirements or whether it is intended to address all the IDIQ PWS requirements and the sample task requirements. If the technical volume is intended to address the MA IDIQ PWS and the sample task PWS, recommend increasing the page limit to accomoallow for an adequate response for the technical and management approach for each PWS. | Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Contractor to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. |
| 15 | Section L | Page 6, Paragraph L.4.1.2.5.2 | Will the Government provide the source code and documentation associated with the Government owned software applications so the Offeror may adequately define the detailed approach for the required integratiuon into the Government owned software applications. Additionally, will the Government provide detailed information and documentation on the current system level tests so the Offeror can provide a detailed approach for improvment of the system level tests. | The Government will not be providing source code and/or documentation for RFP. For potential future task orders, the Government will not provide source code and/or detailed information on approaches for proposal generation. The Government can provide summary of past activities and products on case-by-case task order RFP. Any source code, documentation, and/or other Government Furnished Information (GFI) would be discussed and provided upon a task order award and discussion at technical kick-off. An awarded task order provides protection of the Government Owned GFI. |
| 16 | Section L | Page 7, Paragraph L.4.1.2.8.7 | This paragraph references a hiring /retention plan for the performance of the MAC IDIQ. However, some of the other requirements under section L.4.1.2.8 seem to be more specific to the sample task (e.g., L.4.2.1.8.8 - travel schedule of proposed trips). Will the Government please clarify whether each of the requirements under subfactor (d) is intended to cover our Management Approach/Plan for the overall MA IDIQ PWS or specifically for the sample task. | The instructions for the Sample Task are listed in paragraph L.4.1.1.1. The instructions listed in paragraphs L.4.2.1.8.7 and so on represent instructions to the Offeror to provide details within their Management Approach/Plan as it pertains to the MA IDIQ PWS task requirements. |
| 17 | Section L | Page 7, Paragraph L.4.1.2.10 | This paragraph indicates that Subfactor (d) - Management - Subfactor (c) - Key Personnel assesses the Offeror's qualifications and experience that demonstrates the ability to successfully lead and manage a research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) organization commensurate with their proposed roles. Please confirm the Government intends for the Offeror to identify key personnel that can lead the sample task, not an RDT&E organization. | The Offeror will be evaluated on its ability to propose to and ability to manage a research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) project in the context of the task order requirements (e.g., technical approach, key personnel, management structure, budget, issue/risk mitigation). |
| 18 | Section L | Page 8, Paragraph L.4.1.2.10.1 & L.4.1.2.10.2 | Please confirm whether the Government is requesting key personnel be identified for the sample task PWS or the broader MA IDIQ PWS. If this is for the MA IDIQ, how is the Offeror to determine level of effort or workload associated with the PWS as requested in L.4.1.2.10.2 when that level of specification and associated quanities are not provided in the MA IDIQ PWS. | The Government is not going to provide specific labor category suggestions. The Offeror is expected to provide labor categories and skill sets to address their technical approach based on the MA IDIQ PWS task requirements. Note: The Government does not require any Key Personnel to be identified at the base MA IDIQ level. |
| 19 | Section L | Page 8, Paragraph L.4.1.2.10.3 | This paragraph requires identification of subcontracor labor. Is the Government requesting that the names of subcontractor companies also be redacted in one of the digital proposals? | The Government would expect partnering company to be named and then redacted. If the partnering company is part of how the proposal intends to meet MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task requirements, that should be part of the evaluation as critical part of overall proposal for MA IDIQ award. Each task order/delivery order could have unique requirements where a company sub-contract for that unique task order specific requirement. In that case, a company would probably state for example "although we do not have a partner for this proposal, we company XYZ have a pool of partnerships that could be brought in to meet unique requirements for task orders." This paragraph of instructions has been renamed L.4.1.2.10 under Element A Approach /Plan. |
| 20 | Section L | Page 12, Paragraph L.6.1.5 | This paragraph references a section L.10.1 but this section is not contained within this section L document. | The text has been update to read "reference subparagraphs L.6.1, 1-4 as required." |
| 21 | Section L | Page 13, Paragraph L.6.1.6 | This paragraph references a section L.10.1 but this section is not contained within this section L document. | The text has been update to read "reference subparagraphs L.6.1, 1-3 as required. |
| 22 | Section M | Page 8, Paragraph M.3.1.2.2 | This evaluation criteria does not appear to directly align with section L.4.1.2.5.2. Can the Government please clarify the details of the evaluation critieria that align with section L.4.1.2.5.2. | The Offeror shall discuss and technical approaches that will improve current Government owned software applications as well as any innovative solutions based the MA IDIQ PWS task requirements (e.g., technology or manufacturing readiness). |
| 23 | RFP, Section L, Section M | RFP Page 18, Paragraph 12.1 & |
Section L Page Page 3, Paragraph L.3.3.2 & Page 4, Paragraph L.3.3.2.1.2 & Section M, Page 4, Paragraph M.2.1.2 Evaluation Criteria The RFP states " The contractor shall possess or be capable of obtaining a TOP SECRET facility clearance as prescribed by DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification. Contractor performance may be at the contractor facility or the User Agency requiring the support. The contractor may receive, generate, and safeguard classified information up to the SECRET level at their facility."
Section L states "The Offeror must provide their company name and primary CAGE Code for the government to verify in the National Industrial Security System database (NISS) showing that they possess and active Top-Secret FCL and documentation safeguarding at the time of proposal submission. " Section M states "The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for a written statement demonstrating the Offeror (and any teaming partner(s) is currently approved for a FCL and safeguarding at the Top-Secret Level."
| Will the Government please confirm that the Offeror is required to have an FCL at the Top Secret level and safeguarding of documents only at the Secret level. | Paragraph C.11.1 Facility Clearance within the RFP now reads "The Contractor shall possess a TOP SECRET facility clearance as prescribed by DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification". In addition, the following sentence has been update to read as follows " the contractor may receive, generate, and safeguard classified information up to the TOP SECRET level at their facility". The Offeror is required to have a TOP SECRET FCL and safeguarding of documents at the TOP SECRET level as well. Note: The FCL is step two of the Entry Gate Criteria. If an Offeror does not posses a TOP SECRET FCL , their proposal will not be evaluated! | ||||
| 24 | Section L | Page 3, Paragraph L.3.2 | This paragraph states "The narrative shall relate and identify, which evaluation factors are being addressed in the summary." and also states "All evaluation factors must be met independent of the narrative summary.". Can the Government please clarify what is meant by "shall relate and identify, which evaluation factors are being addressed in the summary" given all evaluation factors are required to met independent of the narrative summary. | The Government has removed the following sentence "The narrative shall relate and identify, which evaluation factors are being addressed in the summary" to remove the ambiguity. | |
| 25 | Section L | Page 6, Paragraph L.4.1.2.5.1 | Can the Government please confirm that the Software Requirements Document (SRD) being referenced is the sample task PWS. Also, can the Government please confirm that any reference to the SRD is solely tied to the sample task PWS and not the MA IDIQ PWS. | The language has been updated to remove Software Requirement Document (SRD). | |
| 26 | Section L, Section M | Section L, Page 9, L.5.1.2.4 & | |||
| Section M, Page 12, M.4.2.2 | Section L defines PP recency as "Recency is defined as ongoing contracts or those completed within five (5) years of the date of issuance of the solicitation, to include at least one (1) year of documented performance during the five (5) year period." | ||||
| Section M defines PP recency as "Recent contracts are those in which the Offeror has performed within the previous three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. In order to be considered “recent” for the purpose of this evaluation, current programs must have at least three (3) months of completed performance from the date of issuance of this RFP." Would the government please confirm whether recent is a 5 year or 3 year reachback and if contracts need a minimum of 3 months or 1 year of effort during that time? | The language in L.5.1.2.4 has been updated to reflect three (3) years instead of five (5) years for recency and one (1) year instead of three (3) months years of effort during that time to coincide with M.4.2.2. | ||||
| 27 | Section M | Page 2, Paragraph M.1.5 & Page 4, Paragraph M.3. | Section M.1.5 indicates "M.1.5 This RFP includes a Basic Performance Work Statement (PWS) and a Sample Task (See Attachment 7 in Section J). The Offerors proposal shall be evaluated against the following factors for the PWS Sample Task". |
Section M.3 indicates "The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the four (4) technical subfactors below M.3.1.1, M.3.1.2, M.3.1.3, and M.3.1.4 as they apply to the Basic Performance Work Statement (PWS)".
| Will the Government please provide clarification on whether the proposal will be evaluated against the Basic IDIQ PWS or the Sample Task PWS. | Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Contractor to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | ||||
| 28 | Sample Task | Page 3, Paragraph 3.12 | This section states "The Contractor shall generate a white paper discussing and recommending a non-kinetic vulnerability assessment approach......The Contractor shall include high-level/initial focus points (i.e., highlights) in the sample task proposal to assist in technical kick-off." | ||
| The requirement to include high-level/initial focus points in the proposal was not mentioned in Section L. Can the Government please clarify whether these are to be included in and evaluated as part of the sample task proposal. | The Government intent is to gauge the Offeror’s core knowledge or skills on a non-kinetic vulnerability assessment with high-level/initial focus points that an Offeror would investigate to modify the kinetic assessment to start to address non-kinetic. The word white paper has been removed and substituted with an executive summary. | ||||
| 29 | Draft RFP W911QX23R0002 Analytical Services Word Document | Page 17, C.11 | Assuming we will receive access to classified datasets such as before and after bomb strike images, will there be an expected time frame to demonstrate a prototype, even if it’s not fully developed and tested? | Any source code, data, models, documentation, and/or other Government Furnished Information (GFI) would be discussed and provided upon a specific task order award and discussion at technical kick-off. An awarded task order and agreements provides protection of the Government Owned GFI. A Contractor can provide key assumptions on what GFI is expected to meet its approach. Individual task orders will outline requirements and expected schedule and technical deliverables (e.g., end of PoP), which could include identifying that deliverable is a prototype or engineering build. A Contractor can also identify risks that may include a prototype deliverable is low risk with release candidate is high risk. This later point can be done in proposals, technical kick-off, and/or progress reviews. | |
| 30 | Draft RFP W911QX23R0002 Analytical Services Word Document | Page 13, C.7.6 | Roughly what percentage of time will require someone to be on a USG facility as opposed to virtual participation? | The percentage varies greatly task order to task order depending on requirements. Historically on past task orders, a majority of work is done at Contractor facility, however there have been task order requirements completely done at Government facilities, as well as hybrid mixture. Meeting participation also varies by task order and requirements. Again most work is completed at Contractor facilities, however there could be meetings held entirely at Government facilities based on classification or other limitations, where the Government will support needed participation aspects (e.g., CAC cards). Most sync and progress meetings that can be done at unclassified level have been completed by entirely virtual means or in a hybrid (in-person and virtual) manner. | |
| 31 | Draft RFP W911QX23R0002 Analytical Services Word Document | Page 34, H.14 | M-Partners is open to teaming agreements. What is the recommended path forward to connect with other contractors also interested in teaming agreements? | Contracting can provide a list of interest sources for this requirement. | |
| 32 | Draft RFP W911QX23R0002 Analytical Services Word Document | Page 2, B.3 (a) | We understand the contract ceiling value for all awards is expected to be $99M. Is there a ceiling for individual awards? | The ceiling value for this MA IDIQ is $99M and a combination of all task order issued count toward this ceiling. The Government reduces the amount of the total ceiling by each task order award. Therefore, the max ceiling amount for a task order will be $99M, but highly unlikely to happen. Past task orders for similar services on the previous MA IDIQ averaged a little over $1.5M. | |
| 33 | Section L | L.4 | Government requirements for technical response are unclear between the PWS provided in Section C of the DRFP and the Sample Task assessment. Request clarification of the intent of the Government to see the offeror's response to the entire PWS, the Sample Task, or both. See questions 7 (L.4.1.2.8.8), 9 (L4.1.2.10.2), 10 (L.4.1.2.10.3), and 11 (L.6.1.2) for further context into the implications of this question. | Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Contractor to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The specific sample task evaluation instructions are listed in paragraph L.4.1.1.1 and all other paragraphs referenced in your question are evaluation instructions for the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | |
| 34 | Section L | L.4.1.1 | Does this paragraph apply to just the PWS or to the Sample Task as well - meaning that the offeror is to address each item in the PWS by technical subfactor and then only address the items in L.4.1.1.1 in the Sample Task? Or are the technical subfactors also to be addressed in the Sample Task requirements? | This paragraph applies only to the Sample Task. | |
| 35 | Section L | L.4.1.2 | Request clarification as to where the Sample Task response fits within the Volume. | The Sample Task fits within the Technical Volume. | |
| 36 | Section L | L.4.1.2.5.1 | The Software Requirements Document (SRD) is introduced in this paragraph but is not defined elsewhere nor mentioned in the PWS. It is unclear what the "technical requirements" required by this paragraph are. Request the Government add a description of the SRD and its associated technical requirements. | The language has been updated to remove Software Requirement Document (SRD). | |
| 37 | Section L | L.4.1.2.6 | Request the Government consider mandating CMMI Development Level 3 as a measure of an offeror's measured/assessed ability to integrate best practices to develop quality products. | The Government will not be mandating CMMI Development Level 3. | |
| 38 | Section L | L.4.1.2.8.6 | The provided non-disclosure agreements should not count against the technical volume page limit, as these documents are authored by corporate legal teams and as such do not conform to specific page or length limitations. | Non-Disclosure Agreement has been added to paragraph L.2.4 and shall not count against the page count. | |
| 39 | Section L | L.4.1.2.8.8 | Does the Government intend for the travel schedule and proposed trips to apply to the Sample Task or the entire contract PWS? The Sample Task contains a basis for travel estimation. The ID/IQ contract itself does not, as there is not explicit tasking provided. Request the Government clarify intent. | Travel requirements would be at task order level, and if travel is needed for sample task, then the Offeror should propose in response to sample task order. Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Offeror to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The later would include travel requirements. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | |
| 40 | Section L | L.4.1.2.10.1 | Request the Government remove resumes from the Technical Volume page count. | Key Personnel Resumes have been added to paragraph L.2.4 and shall not count against the page count. | |
| 41 | Section L | L.4.1.2.10.2 | Does the Government intend for the staffing and skill manpower matrix to apply to the Sample Task or the entire contract PWS? The Sample Task contains a basis for staffing estimation. The ID/IQ contract itself does not, as there is not explicit tasking provided. Request the Government clarify intent. | Staffing and skill manpower would be at task order level. The Offeror should propose in response to sample task order. Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Offeror to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The later would include travel requirements as well. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | |
| 42 | Section L | L.4.1.2.10.3 | Does the Government intend for the identification of subcontractor work to apply to the Sample Task or the entire contract PWS? The Sample Task contains a basis for defined subcontractor participation estimation. The ID/IQ contract itself does not, as there is not explicit tasking provided. Request the Government clarify intent. | The Government expectation is that the partnering company be named and then redacted. If the partnering company is part of how the proposal intends to meet the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task requirements that should be part of the evaluation as a critical part of the overall proposal for the MA IDIQ award. Each task order/delivery order could have unique requirements where a company sub-contract for that unique task order specific requirement. In that case, a company would probably state for example "although we do not have a partner for this proposal, we company XYZ have a pool of partnerships that could be brought in to meet unique requirements for task orders." | |
| 43 | Section L | L.6.1.2 | Does the Government intend for the Small Business Participation Plan to apply to the Sample Task or the entire contract? The Sample Task contains the basis for defined participation. The ID/IQ does not contain explicit tasking required to quantify the amount of work in each PWS requirement. Request the Government clarify the intent and scope of the Small Business Participation Plan. | The Small Business Participation Plan applies to the MA IDIQ master contract with a $99M ceiling. The Sample Task is an evaluation tool for technical understanding of the MA IDIQ. Paragraph L.4.1.1.1 has no requirement for a Small Business Participation Plan. | |
| 44 | Section L | L.7.1 | The following statements appear to be in conflict: "A full cost / price proposal is required in response to the PWS document." "The Offeror shall provide a full cost / price proposal based on the PWS Sample Task provided at the time of solicitation." The first statement is incongruent with the cost evaluation criteria stated in Section M.6 Factor 5 - Cost Evaluation, which states that the "Offeror shall provide a full cost proposal based on the Sample Task". Request the Government clarify the intent and scope of the cost proposal as defined in Section L. | The expectations are for the Offerors to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The following sentence has been deleted " A full cost/price proposal is required in response to the the PWS document". | |
| 45 | Section L | L.7.2.2 & M.6.2 | The Government states that cost proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and comparison of proposed prices will ensure a fair and reasonable price. Given this, it would seem that the incumbents will have a competitive advantage as they will know what constitutes a fair and reasonable price to complete a task order based on precedent. Request the Government consider asking bidders to simply provide their rates, and use that to ascertain a fair and reasonable price, or to province labor categories and level of effort and allow bidders to apply their rates. | The Government will evaluate the cost reasonableness and realism by the Offeror in response to the Sample Task cost proposal information submitted to determine a fair and reasonable price. An Offeror's submitted labor category rates would be evaluated against those same labor categories rates provided at e.g., GSA calc, salary.com, etc. not the incumbent contractor. | |
| 46 | Section M | M.3 Factor 2 - Technical Evaluation | The Evaluation Criteria do not provide for the evaluation of a technical approach to the Sample Task. This omission is potentially incongruent with Section L requirements and is incongruent with the Section M.6 Factor 5 Cost Evaluation which requires a cost proposal based upon the Sample Task. Request the Government clarify the Technical Evaluation application. | The Sample Task has been included in the M.3 Factor 2 - Technical Evaluation section. | |
| 47 | Section M | M.4 Factor 3 - Past Performance; M.4.2.1 | Since an ID/IQ does not explicitly define work (work is explicitly defined in individual Task Orders), how does the Government intend the contractors to project workshare? | The anticipated workshare breakdown between prime and subcontractors should be provided in response to the Sample Task PWS. | |
| 48 | Section M | M.4 Factor 3 - Past Performance; M.4.2.1 | Which sections of the contract are considered "critical aspects"? | The Government defines critical aspects the same as an Offeror performing a majority of the task requirements listed in the MA IDIQ PWS. | |
| 49 | Section M | M.4 Factor 3 - Past Performance; M.4.2.2 | Section L.5.1.2.4 defines recency for past performance as within 5 years of the solicitation. Section M defines recency as within 3 years of the solicitation. Request the Government clarify the recency requirement. | The language in L.5.1.2.4 has been updated to reflect three (3) years instead of five (5) years for recency and one (1) year instead of three (3) months years of effort during that time to coincide with M.4.2.2. | |
| 50 | Section M | M5.1 | Does the Government intend to provide labor categories as referenced in the subject paragraph? | The Government is not going to provide specific labor category suggestions. The Contractor is expected to provide labor categories and skill sets to address their technical approach at a task order level. | |
| 51 | Section L, Section M | L.4.1.2.5.1, M.3.1.2.1 | There is a reference to the requirements in the Software Requirements Document (SRD). No SRD is evident anywhere else in the solicitation. Can the government clarify this reference? | The language has been updated to remove Software Requirement Document (SRD). | |
| 52 | Section L, Section M | L.4.1.2.10.1, M.3.1.4.3 Subfactor d - Management - Subfactor c = Key Personnel, M.3.1.4.3.1 | Are resumes required for key personnel for the overall contract or the sample task? | Resumes would be at task order level for skill sets that meet the proposed technical approach. Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Contractor to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | |
| 53 | Section L, Section M | L.4.1.2.10.1, M.3.1.4.3.1, L.2.4 | Do resumes go against the page count since the combined Technical Volume includes all Management subfactors? At up to eight (8) resumes and average 2 pages each, that could account for 8-16 pages of the 45 allowed. Would government consider adding resumes to page exclusions cited in L.2.4? | Key Personnel Resumes have been added to paragraph L.2.4 and shall not count against the page count. | |
| 54 | Section M | M.1.2 Factor 2 - Subfactor c, M.3.1.3 | Does the Quality Control Plan go against the page count for the Management volume? Would government consider adding resumes to page exclusions cited in L.2.4? | The Quality Control Plan does count against the Technical Volume page limit that has been increased from 45 to 50 pages. | |
| 55 | Section L, Section M, Draft RFP C.7, | L.4.1.1 and L..1.1.1 and M.1.5, Draft RFP C.7, Sample Task 3.0 | Can the government clarify if Technical subfactors apply to all technical requirements of the base PWS (Draft RFP C.7) or only the requirements specified in the Sample Task (3.0)? | Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Contractor to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | |
| 56 | Section L | L.4.1.2.8.8 | Section in reference states “Provide a travel schedule of proposed trips and number of personnel (include mode of transportation, starting point, ending point, and number of days per trip).” Can the government clarify that this is for response to the Sample Task only? | Travel requirements would be at task order level, and if travel is needed for sample task, then the Contractor should propose in response to sample task order. Both the MA IDIQ PWS and Sample Task response will be used for overall evaluation. The expectations are for the Contractor to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the sample task for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The later would include travel requirements. The sample task is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. The Government has increased the page limit to address both from 45 pages to 50 pages. | |
| 57 | Section L | L.7 | Will the Government include a Cost/Pricing spreadsheet template in the Final Solicitation release? Spreadsheet templates, to be used in reponse to the Sample Task, were provided to Offerors in the Final Soliciation release back in 2017. | Attachment 10 - Cost Proposal Format will be added the Final RFP. | |
| 58 | Section L | L.7.2.1 | If Offerors attach a copy of a letter from a U.S. Government organization approving their accounting system (e.g., DCAA/DCMA), are Offerors also required to submit their Accounting Policies and Practices? | Submission by the Offeror(s) of an approved accounting system letter signed by DCMA/DCAA will suffice. | |
| 59 | |||||
| 60 | |||||
| 61 | |||||
| 62 | |||||
| 63 | |||||
| 64 | |||||
| 65 | |||||
| 66 | |||||
| 67 | |||||
| 68 | |||||
| 69 | |||||
| 70 | |||||
| 71 | |||||
| 72 | |||||
| 73 | |||||
| 74 | |||||
| 75 | |||||
| 76 | |||||
| 77 | |||||
| 78 | |||||
| 79 | |||||
| 80 | |||||
| 81 | |||||
| 82 | |||||
| 83 | |||||
| 84 | |||||
| 85 | |||||
| 86 | |||||
| 87 | |||||
| 88 | |||||
| 89 | |||||
| 90 | |||||
| 91 | |||||
| 92 | |||||
| 93 | |||||
| 94 | |||||
| 95 | |||||
| 96 | |||||
| 97 | |||||
| 98 | |||||
| 99 | |||||
| 100 | |||||
| 101 | |||||
| 102 | |||||
| 103 | |||||
| 104 | |||||
| 105 | |||||
| 106 | |||||
| 107 | |||||
| 108 | |||||
| 109 | |||||
| 110 | |||||
| 111 | |||||
| 112 | |||||
| 113 | |||||
| 114 | |||||
| 115 | |||||
| 116 | |||||
| 117 | |||||
| 118 | |||||
| 119 | |||||
| 120 | |||||
| 121 | |||||
| 122 | |||||
| 123 | |||||
| 124 | |||||
| 125 | |||||
| 126 | |||||
| 127 | |||||
| 128 | |||||
| 129 | |||||
| 130 | |||||
| 131 | |||||
| 132 | |||||
| 133 | |||||
| 134 | |||||
| 135 | |||||
| 136 | |||||
| 137 | |||||
| 138 | |||||
| 139 | |||||
| 140 | |||||
| 141 | |||||
| 142 | |||||
| 143 | |||||
| 144 | |||||
| 145 | |||||
| 146 | |||||
| 147 | |||||
| 148 | |||||
| 149 | |||||
| 150 | |||||
| 151 | |||||
| 152 | |||||
| 153 | |||||
| 154 | |||||
| 155 | |||||
| 156 | |||||
| 157 | |||||
| 158 | |||||
| 159 | |||||
| 160 | |||||
| 161 | |||||
| 162 | |||||
| 163 | |||||
| 164 | |||||
| 165 | |||||
| 166 | |||||
| 167 | |||||
| 168 | |||||
| 169 | |||||
| 170 | |||||
| 171 | |||||
| 172 | |||||
| 173 | |||||
| 174 | |||||
| 175 |
image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .