Copy of I. B-08 GPS Solicitation - Industry QA (AMD 0001-0006).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W519TC24R0011-0006
About this file
This is a Questions & Answers (Q&A) matrix for solicitation W519TC-24-R-0011 for Global Protective Services (GPS), containing 99 industry questions and government responses spanning multiple amendments (0001-0006). The matrix covers clarifications about proposal submission requirements, evaluation criteria, security clearance requirements, and technical specifications.
Key updates through the Q&A process include: removal of the requirement for redacted proposal copies, extension of the proposal due date to February 28, 2025, clarification that prime contractors must achieve 50% of the minimum technical rating threshold score, confirmation that both prime and subcontractor experience will be considered for certain evaluation criteria, and revisions to make requirements consistent across the Self-Scoring Matrix and Cross-Reference Matrix documents. The Q&A addresses technical details about armed security services, explosive detection canine teams, contractor life support, and facility clearance requirements, while also clarifying proposal formatting and submission guidelines through the PIEE system.
View the file
Other files
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
Notes
| This Question-Comment Matrix is provided to ensure transparency and equal access to information for all offerors participating in the solicitation process for W519TC-24-R-0011. The information contained herein is accurate as of 10/10/2024. |
| Please note the following: |
| Purpose: This matrix is intended to document questions submitted by offerors and the corresponding responses provided by the U.S. Government (USG). |
| Updates: The matrix will be updated periodically to reflect new questions and responses. Offerors are encouraged to check for updates regularly on SAM.gov |
| Accuracy: While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the USG is not responsible for any errors or omissions. |
Final Authority: The official solicitation documents and any amendments issued by the USG take precedence over the information in this matrix.
Confidentiality: This matrix is for the use of offerors participating in this solicitation only. It should not be shared with third parties without the express permission of the USG.
| Thank you for your participation and cooperation. |
| For any further inquiries or clarifications, please contact MSG Anthony Patera or Eric Jackson at usarmy.ria.acc.mbx.gps@army.mil |
Q&A
| W519TC24R0011 - Global Protective Services (GPS) Industry Q&A - ALL | ||||
| Controlled Unclassified Source Selection Sensitive Information | ||||
| Question ID | Question | USG Response | Corresponding Amendment | Status: Closed/Open |
| Q1 | The USG requires the use of the PIEE Solicitation module to track changes and amendments to customer documents. However, the solicitation number is not listed in the PIEE module. Will the government please specify when the solicitation will be added to PIEE? | Solicitation & Amendments posted on SAM.gov and in PIEE | NA | Closed |
| Q2 | In GPS Attachment 0007, PWS Reference # 9.2 Mobilization Plan, the table indicates that a Mobilization Plan is required both with the IDIQ Proposal and with a Task Order Proposal. However, the Notes state that the Mobilization Plan is due within 24 hours of task order award. Would the Government please clarify whether offerors should include a sample mobilization plan with its IDIQ proposal? And if so, where should it be included? | Requirement revised in updated PWS | 0001 | Closed |
| Q3 | The solicitation notice on SAM.gov states that questions are due by 10:00 AM CT on February 3. However, the Executive Summary in solicitation document W519TC24R0011.pdf, Item A-6 states that "Questions or comments must be submitted NLT 24 days prior to the RFP closing date." Would the Government please clarify when questions are due? | Corrected to state 03FEB2025. Consistent the SAM posting. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q4 | Appendix A - Work Sample Cover Sheet has no interactive objects or renderable text, and cannot be filled out as the form does not allow for text to be entered into the form. Will the government please provide a revised cover sheet that allows offerors to type in the form? | Updated | 0001 | Closed |
| Q5 | Section L-3.3.1.4. specifies that "Work samples shall be provided in their original format; page numbers may be added." Would the government permit Offerors to add highlights and comments within each work sample to facilitate evaluation? For example, using Adobe, Offerors are able to highlight text and add comments to assist evaluators in locating information. | Added language | 0001 | Closed |
| Q6 | In RFP Att. 0002 Section L-3.2.2, Govt requires......"For any contracts......page count". This appears to be a hold over from an earlier draft RFP that imposed a more stringent page count than the current 45 pages. This requirements also appears to be duplicative of earlier requirements in L-3.2.2. Will the Government remove that entire sentence from the end of para L-3.2.2? | There is still a page count and we are stating that the additional information we asking for is excluded from any page count. No revision made. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q7 | RFP Att. 0002 Section L-3.2.2 last sentence implies that adverse performance information is excluded form the 45-page limit for past performance. Will the Government confirm that any letters of concern, cure notices, show cause letters etc. (which can be voluminous) and any related corrective action discussion can be exempted from page count? | No revision made - I think the paragraph does communicate that the adverse PP documentation is excluded from the page count | 0001 | Closed |
| Q8 | Are questions asked previously in response to the iterations of the draft RFP going to be answered separately or should offerors repose those questions that are still relevant? | Questions that have not been previously addressed should be reposed to the USG to respond to. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q9 | RFP Attachment 0002 Section L-3.3.1.1 Work Sample Qualifications lays out the minimum qualifications for contracts to be cited as work samples under prior technical experience. Neither the RFP Attachment 0006 Self-Scoring Matrix, nor the RFP Attachment 0014 Cross-Reference Matrix has columns or rows in which offerors can clearly identify that the cited work samples meet the requirements of L-3.3.1.1.a-c. So, for example, there is nowhere in the submission for an offeror to clearly identify in one convenient place for the evaluators whether the cited contracts are USG, commercial, foreign government, or if they have at least six months of active performance. Those requirements are not part of the self-scoring or cross-reference matrices. The Government also states that offerors shall not "create any new documentation, such as project narratives or project descriptions." QUESTION: Can offerors assume that the Government can make those determinations by reviewing the work sample substantiating documentation (e.g. contract first pages with customer names and periods of performance), without the offeror having to address each item specifically? If not, how should offerors clearly identify that each work sample meets those basic requirements of L-3.3.1.1 a-c? | Added language to Section L and the Solicitation to have the KTRs add the information to the PART III Description box of the Cover Sheet. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q10 | For those work samples being used to satisfy multiple requirements in the SSM/CRM, do offerors have to substantiate the period of performance, duration, OCONUS location etc. each time they are cited? | Added clarification to the Solicitation narrative. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q11 | Some contract documents contain the required information (e.g. customer, dollar value, period of performance) in the first few pages of what can be a very long document. To reduce file size and ease upload into PIEE, can offerors remove superfluous materials from the back of long contract docs? | Added additional language to Section L and the Solicitation to address this. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q13 | The order of the questions in the SSM and the CRM is different, making it more challenging to cross-reference and to evaluate. The CRM lists all the questions in the logical order in L-3.3.5, whereas the SSM order is not sequential (e.g. L-3.3.5.2 requirements are interspersed with other questions); the SSM questions appear to be ordered by score weighting. To ease the cross-referencing for the evaluators, will the Government consider re-ordering the SSM or CRM to align the questions in the same order in both documents? | Clarification added to the Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q14 | RFP Section A-6 states: "Questions or comments must be submitted NLT 24 days prior to the RFP closing date." That conflicts with the instructions on SAM that questions are due on 2/3/25 - only 11 days ahead of the submission date. Will the Government clarify the deadline for submission of questions? | Clarification added to the Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q15 | Contractors do not have access to many referenced materials in the PWS. Will all referenced regulations, policies, requirements, manuals, publications, directives, OP ORDs, medical directives, language requirements, and FRAGOs for each COCOM be provided? | Nothing additional added to the Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q16 | Section 2.5 Biometric Collection states "It is incumbent upon the Contractor to submit the request for biometric enrollment as quickly as possible to minimize delays in the arming authorization process". Can a time period for USG's part of the processing be noted here too? | Nothing additional added to the Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q17 | PWS Section 2.7.2 states "If an employee knows or should know that their weapon is not in the proper working condition, the employee shall immediately report to their Security Guard Supervisor or the Contractor's appropriate chain of command for repair and/or approved replacement". Please define what "should know" means in this context. | Pseudo definintion of "should know" added to the PWS | 0001 | Closed |
| Q18 | PWS Section 6.3.2.3 notes the possible requirement for boat patrols. Under what circumstances would boat patrols be required? Who is responsible for providing the boats? What are the requirements for the boats? | Added clarification to PWS and Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q19 | PWS Section 8.3 states that "Where Contractors have access to crew-served weapons, training and qualification shall be conducted by the Contractor". On previous similar contracts, crew-served weapons training was provided by the USG, as they provided the weapons and ammunition. Please clarify/confirm who is to provide this training. | Added clarification to PWS and Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q20 | M-2 refers in the narrative to a five-step process for evaluating proposals, yet the graphic below the narrative appears to show six steps, including award. Only two steps are then articulated in Sections M-2.1 and M-2.3. Will the Government please clarify the process and the steps for evaluating submitted proposal materials? | Table removed | 0001 | Closed |
| Q21 | The table on page 6 of Section L Attachment 2 instructions list the CRM as L-3.3.5, but in the narrative below, it is listed as L-3.3.6. L-3.3.5 and L-3.3.6 appear to be effectively referring to the same thing - how to assemble the CRM to aid Government evaluation. Suggest combining the two Sections into one section L-3.3.5. | Updated Section L to include the Cross-Reference Matrix as paragraph L-3.3.5.6, effectively combining the paragraphs as suggested. | 0001 | Closed |
| Q22 | RFP Attachment 0002 Section L-3.3.1.3 identifies the types of documents offerors can use to substantiate their scores in the self-scoring matrix. The last two sentences of that para state: "Subcontractor proprietary information may be redacted. The redacted work sample must stand on its own to be verified against the Self-Scoring matrix." This implies that only subcontractor work samples can be redacted. Since some prime contracts, particularly in the commercial security arena, are very sensitive, will the Government allow offerors to redact certain aspects of the prime contract substantiating documentation (e.g. the name of the customer), both in the substantiating documentation, as long as that documentation still substantiates the self-scoring? | Added | 0001 | Closed |
| Q23 | The RFP Attachment 014 CRM has one row in the spreadsheet for each question. In the case of a question that requires multiple data points and contract citations to substantiate the self-score (up to 20 work samples in some cases), will the Government allow offerors to divide the rows into separate subordinate rows within the Government issued CRM template, in order to facilitate evaluation? | Clarification added to the Solicitation | 0001 | Closed |
| Q24 | PWS 5.2.5 states In-Transit Visibility (ITV) is a requirement for contingency environments. Can the Government confirm what it considers a "contingency environment" in this context? Will the USG provide ITV equipment for contractors or provide a list of approved ITV accepted equipment? | A Contingency environment would be any area that is within a Contingency Operation Per DoDI 3020.50 a Contingency operation " Pursuant to Section 101(a)(13)(a) of Title 10, United States Code, a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation, or that becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law in accordance with Section 101(a)(13)(b) of Title 10, United States Code." - Added to AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed |
| Q25 | Attachment 11, DD254, block 13, paragraph 2, states, "The Contractor shall have and maintain a U.S. TOP SECRET facilities clearance". This contradicts what is listed in solicitation paragraph A-7.2 and PWS paragraph 2.3. Can the Government confirm if a TOP SECRET or SECRET FCL is required for the MAIDIQ contract award? | TOP Secret FCL is not required at the Base level. Only a Secret FCL - Updated in AMD 0002 and Attachment 0011 DD254 | 0002 | Closed |
| Q26 | Will all GPS operating locations be afforded Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) status where those agreements have been established? | Depends on the designation of CAAF v Non-CAAF status which can't be known at this time. | 0002 | Closed |
| Q27 | PWS 5.2.2.c. states, "All-terrain flat-free steel-belted radial tires". Does the Government intend for all contractor furnished NTV's to have "run flat" tires, or something similar? | See updated PWS - Clarification added to AMD 0002 and removed from PWS | 0002 | Closed |
| Q28 | PWS 5.5 states the contractor shall provide body armor with SAPI inserts. Can the USG confirm what level of protection and/or NIJ certification(s) are required for these items? | This will be determined at the TO level - No changes made; this is clearly communicated in the PWS | 0002 | Closed |
| Q29 | PWS 6.6.2.8.C states, "Military experience with honorable discharge or four (4) years of equivalent police experience or four (4) years of equivalent private security experience". Can the Government further define what it considers as acceptable private security experience? | Security Guard or Officer Experience: Working as a security guard or officer for a private security company, providing services such as access control, patrol, and response to incidents. |
Loss Prevention or Asset Protection Experience: Working in a retail or commercial setting to prevent and investigate theft, vandalism, and other forms of property loss.
Executive Protection or Bodyguard Experience: Providing personal protection services for high-profile individuals, such as executives, celebrities, or government officials.
Investigations Experience: Conducting investigations into incidents such as theft, fraud, or other forms of misconduct, either as a private investigator or as part of a security team.
Security Consulting Experience: Providing advice and guidance to organizations on security-related matters, such as risk assessments, security protocols, and emergency response planning.
| Alarm Response or Monitoring Experience: Working in a central station or monitoring center, responding to alarm activations and coordinating responses with law enforcement or other emergency services. Private Investigation Experience: Conducting investigations into civil or criminal matters, such as infidelity, worker's compensation claims, or background checks. Security Management Experience: Overseeing security operations, including supervising security personnel, managing budgets, and developing security policies and procedures. Emergency Response or Crisis Management Experience: Responding to and managing emergency situations, such as natural disasters, workplace violence, or other crises. Law Enforcement or Military Experience: Relevant experience in law enforcement or the military can be considered acceptable private security experience, especially if it involves security-related duties such as patrol, investigations, or tactical operations. | 0002 | Closed | |||
| Q30 | PWS 6.6.7.C states, Four (4) years Military experience. Guard may substitute experience as a contract security guard in a contingency area for two (2) of the total four (4) years' experience." Would the Government be willing to change four (4) years of military experience to two (2) years of military experience? Would the Government accept law enforcement experience? | If reference is to Section 6.6.2.7 please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q31 | PWS 6.6.2.12 Mobile Guard "Medic" does not identify which nationality personnel are acceptable. Does the Government intend for this labor category to be staffed with U.S. EXPATs with NREMT EMT certifications, or can these positions be filled by FVEY/NATO, LN, or OCNs with equivalent international EMT certifications? | This will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q32 | PWS 6.8.2 states, "Guard may substitute experience as a contract security guard in a contingency area for (2) of the total six (6) years experience". Can the Government define what it considers as acceptable contingency area experience? | A Contingency area would be any area that is within a Contingency Operation Per DoDI 3020.50 a Contingency operation " Pursuant to Section 101(a)(13)(a) of Title 10, United States Code, a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation, or that becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law in accordance with Section 101(a)(13)(b) of Title 10, United States Code." - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q33 | PWS 6.9.1 states, "Guard may substitute experience as a contract security guard in a contingency area for (2) of the total six (6) years experience". Can the Government define what it considers as acceptable contingency area experience? | A Contingency area would be any area that is within a Contingency Operation Per DoDI 3020.50 a Contingency operation " Pursuant to Section 101(a)(13)(a) of Title 10, United States Code, a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation, or that becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law in accordance with Section 101(a)(13)(b) of Title 10, United States Code." - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q34 | PWS 7.6 provides a detailed list of tasks, duties, and function performed by the Kennel Master. Can the Government confirm contractors will be provided explosives storage areas, magazines, and other explosives safety equipment as Government Furnished Equipment? | No, the USG can't confirm that GFE will be available, this will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q35 | PWS 7.6 provides a detailed list of tasks, duties, and function performed by the Kennel Master. Will the Government provide dedicated facilities, infrastructure, and secure area(s) to establish kennel facilities? | Possibly, this will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q36 | PWS 7.6 does not list any details regarding receipt of explosive materials by the USG at each OCONUS operating location. Can the Government confirm it will receive and accept explosive shipments in support of contractor CWD teams? | The USG may not be on the ground for all TO's. This will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q37 | PWS 8.4 states firearms instructors must be properly credentialed and accredited by various civilian law enforcement, military or nationally recognized firearms safety and training organizations. This section also states, "or equivalent". Does the Government accept contractor provided firearms instructor certifications for this requirement? | Yes, as long as the Contractor can provide support that it is equivalent to the listed certifying bodies. - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q38 | PWS 9.2 Mobilization states, "The contractor is responsible for mobilizing all personnel. For U.S. citizens mobilization includes travel to the Government approved CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) from an individuals home of record before deployment to location of base defined at TO award". CRC does not support the LEWTC weapons qualification and many contractors arrive at CRC with all required medical/dental processing complete. Further, some contractors are not issued any equipment while attending CRC. This could result in significant cost savings to the USG if authorized for task orders where all requirements are met without processing through CRC. |
| Will the Government consider removing this requirement for certain task orders, where contractors are capable of completing predeployment tasks without mobilization to CRC? | Please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed | ||
| Q39 | PWS 9.2 further states, "CRC cannot be conducted in Contractor owned and/or operated facilities unless waived, or unless another agency's policies and procedures prescribe a different requirement". Can the Government waive CRC requirements for GPS task orders where contractors mobilization and training processes fully satisfy all mandatory mobilization tasks? | Possibly, this will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q40 | PWS 9.2.2 states, "The contractor shall ensure all deploying contracted personnel, before entering Host Nation, have been issued contractor provided protective gear, helmet, gas mask, and any other personal protective equipment required at the time of deployment". Will the Government change this to be determined at the task order level? | Please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q41 | PWS 6.1.7 states, "The contractor shall be responsible for monitoring and maintain security equipment such as surveillance cameras, alarms, access control systems ensuring operability, this is to include security systems provided by the government." Is the contractor expected to provide full maintenance and replacement of Government-provided equipment? | Please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q42 | Reference Appendix A to Section L, according to the instructions the "Contractor Name" is to be the name of "this work sample". Will the Government confirm whether it is the name of the work sample that is required or, as indicated, the "Contractor Name"? | Instructions state "Offerors shall enter the Contractor's Name of this work sample." If you're not the Prime, this could be someone other than your company - No change made. | N/A | Closed | |
| Q43 | Reference Appendix A to Section L, in the "Customer" box, offerors are required to include the "office symbol". Will the Government clarify what that means? | Please see updated instructions - Office Symbol language removed. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q44 | Reference Appendix A to Section L, in the "Primary scope of work" box, the offeror is required to "enter one or more of the following PTE sections", but nothing follows. Will the Government clarify what is required in this box? | Please see updated instructions - Updated language to state, as referenced in the Self-Scoring Matrix | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q45 | Reference Appendix A to Section L, the file is in Times New Roman font. Since this is a Government template, will the Government confirm that this form is exempt from the Arial font requirements mandated in Section L-2.7.1? | Please see updated form. Language added to Section L and AMD 0003 exempting the Arial/10-12pt font requirement FOR APPENDIX A WORK SAMPLE COVER SHEET ONLY. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q46 | In Amendment 001 on 29 Jan 25, RFP L-3.3.1.1 was updated to include adding considerable information into the Part III of the work sample cover sheet (Appendix A). Part III of the cover sheet template has a 500-character limit. Will the Government increase the character limit in Part III of the cover sheet template to allow offerors to include this additional information? | This should be a brief discription, of the topics in PART III, the USG feels that character limit will suffice. No change made. 500 characters should be enough. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q47 | Amendment 001 Section M-2.1 reintroduces the PPI sheet. Will the Government reconfirm that the PPI is no longer part of the offeror submission or the Government evaluation? | PPI's are Not required, please see updated Section M-2.1 - Attachment 0003 - Section M, Paragraph M-2.1 revised to remove any reference to a PPI. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q48 | In the Amendment 001 revised RFP A-6, there is a note that: "Any questions or comments previously directed to the Government that have not been addressed to the Offeror's satisfaction shall be reposed to the Government.....". It would greatly assist all offerors were the Government to answer individual questions using this matrix, since changes to the RFP documents are being made without any notation, making it very difficult to assess whether and how the Government is responding to offeror questions. Will the Government please answer questions in the USG Response Column E of this question matrix? | Understood - Q&As posted to SAM.gov | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q49 | "Amendment 0001 RFP SF30 Section 1.d.i adds to the Section L General Instructions: ""Offerors shall submit two (2) copies of their proposal; one copy shall be redacted to remove the Offeror's name and/or company-identifying information. The second copy shall be unredacted."" QUESTION: Will the Government confirm that this is a requirement, since it does not actually appear in the amended Section L General Instructions?" | Please see updated section L - Redaction requirement removed from Section L and noted again in AMD 0003. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q50 | Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: The requirement to redact a copy of this proposal seems to hamper the evaluation - if all the work sample documentation has to be redacted of the offeror name, how does the Government plan on substantiating that any of the cited PTE work samples were performed by the offeror? | This is to facilitate the easy of the Source Selection, offerors redacted proposals will be categorized as Offer A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 - Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q51 | Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: PIEE does not make provision for two submittals, so all the redacted proposal documents will be submitted under the same PIEE Proposal Manager account, so will be easily identified as belonging to a particular offeror. How does the Government plan on ensuring that redacted proposal documentation remains truly anonymous under these circumstances? | This information will not be made avaliable to the Source Selection Authority. - Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q52 | Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: Proposal documentation, including business files, past performance and PTE work sample documentation could run to more than 120 files, if an offeror were to present the full 60 work samples. If the entire proposal were to be redacted, that could mean 240 lengthy documents (plus business files and past performance) per offeror. Can PIEE accommodate an entire set of additional files, running into hundreds of megabytes and thousands of pages of contract documentation? Are there any upload restrictions on the PIEE system? | According to the DoD Procurement Toolbox information regarding the PIEE Solicitation Module, the size limit for each uploaded attachment is 1.9 gigabytes (GB). - Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q53 | Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: Understanding that redacted proposals help to eliminate potential bias in evaluation, the need for redaction in this particular case seems unwarranted. As stated in M-1.1.1, contracts will be awarded to all offerors who receive a favorable suitability determination and who meet the MTTR in the prior technical experience. That MTTR score has to be demonstrated in black and white through the work sample determination. Therefore the opportunity to unwittingly favor one offeror over another is absent, meaning that redaction serves little purpose, other than to vastly increase the number of files the Government has to review and manage, while making it harder for evaluators to judge compliance or verify scores in the self-scoring matrix. In light of these factors, we strongly suggest that the Government reconsider the requirement for proposals to be redacted. | Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q54 | The requirement in RFP Attachment 0002 L-3.3.5.4.a requires offerors to show the number of "armed security contracts....with at least 2 separate OCONUS geographic locations...." But the corresponding question in the SSM asks offerors to demonstrate the "number of armed contracts.....at OCONUS geographic locations providing PSD or PSS", removing the requirement to show 2 separate questions. The corresponding question in the CRM also removes the requirement to show 2 separate locations. The two matrices are therefore out of synch with Section L-3.3.5.4. Will the Government please clarify which question they wish answered and amend either Section L or the SSM/CRM matrices accordingly? | Section L. Paragraph L-3.3.5.4(a) has been revised to be consistent with the SSM and CRM. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q55 | A-7.10 notes that prior to evaluation of other factors, that the USG will evaluate compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, 2022 or ISO 18788. The Instructions don't explicitly state how Offeror's shall provide this detail to the USG. Can the USG please confirm what documentation should be provided to prove currency with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1 and where that should be provided in Offeror response? | Attachment L-3.3.3 states ANSI/ASIS PSC.1 2012/2022/ISO 18788 Audit Reports: Offerors shall provide documentation evidencing the number of passed ANSI/ASIS PSC.1 Audits (2012 or 2022)/ISO 18788 Audits in the past 6 years prior to the date of proposal. - No change made, pertinent information is in Attachment 0002. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q56 | Attachment 7 CDRLs list notes a requirement to provide a list of locations where they currently have armed and unarmed security contracts - and this is noted as "HN Business License" - can the USG confirm whether they want 1) a list of locaitons, 2) copies of current, valid licenses, or 3) locations with copies of current, valid licenses? Will the USG please confirm where this list or licenses copies should be supplied in Offeror response? | Please see updated CDRL Matrix - Added to AMD 0003 and changed on Attachment 0007 CDRL Matrix. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q57 | A DD-254 submittal is requested with the IDIQ award - will the USG confirm that this DD-254 submittal meets the requirement for confirmation of security clearance in A-7.10 and L.2.6.2? | Clarification added to AMD 0003 | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q58 | A DD-254 submittal is requested with the IDIQ award - will the USG confirm that offeror may remove the "TBD" content in the provided DD-254 for completion? If Offerors have more than 1 Subcontractor, can the USG please confirm how they'd like Offerors to provide Subcontractor data on the DD-254 is the form does not allow Offerors to add a row? | Subsent DD Forms 254 should be completed fo each 1st tier subcontractor. Clarification added to AMD 0003. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q59 | Row 20 of the CRM notes the following: "Number of personnel on Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders who received OCONUS contractor-provided housing and life support in any 36-month period in the past last 7 years." Can the USG confirm whether this is any 36 months of a contract, or should support 36 continuous months of support? | Looking for a continuous 36 month period - Updated SSM and CRM. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q60 | Rows 19-27 are hidden on the Self-Scoring Matrix and do not appear to correlate to scoring roll-ups. Will the USG confirm whether these rows should be included in Offeror scoring matrix? And if so, would the USG please provide an updated scoring matrix for all Offeror's with updates formulas? | Please see updated Self Scoring Matrix. - Unnecessary rows removed. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q61 | Work Sample appendix does not appear to be fillable and the RFP asks that Offeror's not adapt USG-provided files. Can the USG please confirm that Offeror's may convert the work sample file to word in order to complete? Or will the USG please provide a fillable document? | Corrected in previous AMD | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q62 | Amendment 0001 updated Section L-3.3.5.2(b) to remove the reference to 2 or greater locations but the same edit was not made to the CRM - will the USG please provide a revised CRM to meet Section L requirements? | Please see updated Matrix - SSM & CRM updated | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q63 | Amendment 0001 provided an Attachment 8 that does not appear able to be opened. Will the USG please provide a revised version of Attachment 8 for Offerors? | Please see updated - Updated in AMD 0001 | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q64 | Amendment 0001 RFP provides a synopsis of the Amended files and notes an edit to Section L that does not exist in Section L. Namely the provision of two copies of the proposal. One to be redacted. Will the USG kindly advise how Offeror's are to provide a compliant proposal that would detail Prime ownership of contract without the name of the Prime? | This is to facilitate the easy of the Source Selection, offerors redacted proposals will be categorized as Offer A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 - This was corrected in AMD 0002 and further revised in AMD 0003; there is no longer a requirement for a redacted copy of proposals. Only one (1) copy of the proposal is required. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q65 | The sheer volume of data that will be required to be redacted in order to remove company names across many work samples and ancillary files and volume documents is a new requirement in Amendment 0001. This is a time consuming process, and if the requirement stands, will need additional bid time to develop. We respectfully request a 2 week extension to the proposal response deadline to support this new requirement. | Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission. | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q66 | PWS Section 1.6 (p9, third sentence) refers to a Section 1.10 in the context of centralized and decentralized ordering. There is no Section 1.10. | Updated in AMD 0003 and the PWS | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q67 | PWS Section 7.4.1 refers to an Attchment 09 "Explosives Detection Canine Assessment and Certification Standards". Both the original RFP and Amendment 001 show Attachment 09 as ' Registration Instructions for PIEE'. Please provide EDC Assessment and Certifications Standards. | Updated in Attachment 0008 and AMD 0003 | 0003 | Closed | |
| Q68 | PWS Sections 7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.5 convey slightly different experience requirements for canine handlers. Section 7.8.2.1 requires two years' experience in both dual purpose and single purpose canines; Section 7.8.2.5 provides a requirement of "a minimum of one year of experience as a narcotics or explosive detection canine handler. Please clarify. | Addressed in AMD 0002 | 0002 | Closed | |
| Q69 | Reference: I.+B-08+GPS+Appendix+A+Work+Sample... | ||||
| Question: "I.+B-08+GPS+Appendix+A+Work+Sample…" cannot be converted to Word. Can the Government please post a Word version of this document? The reason for this is that a Word document is both easier to fill out and easier to add to the proposal. PDF requires converting the file into images in order to be inserted in the Word document, with the end result that the proposal ends up being a large and unwieldly file that will have to be separated into separate files for submission. | Yes please see MS Word and PDF versions. | 0004 | Closed | ||
| Q70 | Reference: I.+B-08+GPS+Attachment+0007+-+GPS+CDRL+Matrix | ||||
| Question: In "I.+B-08+GPS+Attachment+0007+-+GPS+CDRL+Matrix", it states that the "Contractor shall provide a comprehensive list of all locations where it currently has armed and unarmed security contracts with any entity" as part of its IDIQ Proposal. However, this requirement is not mentioned in Sections L, M or the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix. Further, PWS 11.1 states that business license status should be provided in the TO proposal. Please clarify whether this list should be provided in the IDIQ proposal or not; if yes, please advise where it should be included in the IDIQ proposal and if it's exempt from the page count limit. | This is a CDRL this should be after award. AMD 0004 and Attachment 0007 - No change made to L&M as I believe this will be communicated after award and before the min guarantee TO | 0004 | Closed | ||
| Q71 | Reference: I.+B-08+GPS+Attachment+0007+-+GPS+CDRL+Matrix | ||||
| Question: In "I.+B-08+GPS+Attachment+0007+-+GPS+CDRL+Matrix", it states that the "Contractor shall provide a comprehensive list of all locations where it currently has armed and unarmed security contracts with any entity" as part of its IDIQ Proposal. Please clarify whether Offerors should list locations with unarmed contracts separate from armed contracts. | Yes that should be noted. No change - Should be detailed in min guarantee TO. | 0004 | Closed | ||
| Q72 | Reference: L-2.6.1 [Copy of the Notice of Compliance (IAW FAR 22.805) and/or confirmation of the Vendor’s inclusion on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ National Pre- Award Registry], |
Question: In order for bidders to obtain EEO clearance, Offerors require the following information from the Contracting Office:
1. Anticipated date of award
2. Place(s) of contract performance
3. In addition, the contract has to be uploaded to the pre-Award registry by USACE.
| Can the Government please provide the requested information? | Please note: "If a vendor does not provide Notice of Compliance and/or confirmation of inclusion in the OFCCP Pre-Award Registry with their proposal submission, ACC-RI will initiate a request for confirmation of inclusion in the OFCCP Pre-Award Registry clearance on their behalf." Please submit a request to the GPS mailbox and we can do this for you - Added a blurb to AMD 0004 | 0004 | Closed |
| Q73 | References: |
Section L-2.6.2, second sentence states: "This SECRET level clearance requirement applies to both the prime contractor and any subcontractors involved in the project"; and Section L-2.6.2, fourth sentence states: "For those Offerors submitting a proposal as a newly formed partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company, the requirement for a current Facility Clearance at the SECRET level can be satisfied by submitting documentation that shows all partners or member companies of the partnership currently possess the required Facility Clearance, or at a minimum, those entities requiring access to classified information possess a current Facility Clearance."
| Question(s): The minimimum Secret FCL requirement appears to be applied inconsistently. A Prime and all its subcontractors must possess Secret FCLs but for a "newly formed partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company" only the "entities requiring access to classified information" would require a Secret FCL, implying that not all partners or member companies of a "newly formed partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company" would require a Secret FCL. Can the Government please clarify its intent as to [a] whether uncleared companies/entities are allowed to be part of an Offeror's team and [b] if so, under what circumstances or teaming structure would this be allowed? | Agree this is inconsistant, please see updated Section L 2.6.2 - Revised to remove "…at a minimum.." | 0004 | Closed |
| Q74 | Reference: L-2.7.2 Pages, which states "Not included in the page count are title pages, tables of contents, glossaries of abbreviations, acronyms, or definitions, or copies of certificates. (i.e. Pre- award Documentation)." | ||
| Question: Are "glossaries of abbreviations, acronyms, or definitions" required to be included in the proposal, or are these optional? | Only if they substantiate a portion of the Prior Technical Experience. Claification added | 0004 | Closed |
| Q75 | Reference: L-2.8.3 Proposal Submission | ||
| Question: Due to number of inconsistencies among the various solicitation documents, and considering that the Government's responses to the questions submitted by potential Offerors could have significant impacts on the content and organization of proposals, we respectfully request that the Government please extend the proposal deadline to allow bidder at least 2 weeks to prepare & submit their proposals once the final Q&A has been posted. | USG will consider - 2 Week extension granted. Proposals now due 28 FEB 2025 | 0004 | Closed |
| Q76 | Reference: L.3.1.3 Partnering Documentation, which states "Provide documentation, including Small Business Administration (SBA) letters (IAW 13 CFR 125.8) as applicable, identifying the arrangement and disclosing company relationships (IAW FAR 9.603) for any Joint Venture, Teaming Arrangement, Mentor-Protégé, etc. established for the purposes of this requirement. Provide the signature pages for any signed agreements as applicable. | ||
| Question: Please confirm that Offerors with Teaming Agreements (TAs) are only required to provide "the signature pages for any signed agreements" and not the entire TA in their proposal, as this section is limited to only 10 pages. If the entire TA is required, please exempt these from the 10-page limit for the "Partnering Documentation" section of the proposal." | Confirmed the signature pages for any signed agreements. - Clarification added | 0004 | Closed |
| Q77 | References: |
Section L-3.2, first sentence states: "Offerors shall submit past performance information on up to three recent and relevant USG and/or commercial contracts"; and Section L-3.2, third sentence states: "Regarding new corporate entities, subcontractors, Joint Ventures, Partnering or Teaming arrangements, new entities with parent company the offeror shall submit Past Performance for individual members along with Joint Venture, Partnership or Team for evaluation."
| Question(s): [a] If an Offeror's team (whether Prime/Subcontractors or a Joint Venture, etc.) is comprised of more than three (3) individual entities, will the Government allow for more than three (3) past performance citations to be submitted by the Offeror (i.e., a minimum of one PP citation for each team member)? [b] If the Government will not allow more than a total of three (3) PP citations to be submitted by an Offeror who has a team with more than three (3) individual entities, can the Government please modify the language of this section such that the Offeror is not penalized for not submitting a PP citation for each team member? | Please see updated L3.2 | 0004 | Closed |
| Q78 | Reference: L-3.3.5.2 states (in part): "For this section an Other Country National (OCN) or Foreign National (FN) is a person who is not a citizen or national of the country in which they are currently residing and providing Security Services for the offeror." | ||
| Question: Can the Government please confirm that this definition would apply to U.S. Nationals "residing and providing Security Services" in OCONUS locations? | No please see updated definition in Section L - Definition od U.S. Expatriate added | 0004 | Closed |
| Q79 | References: |
Section L-3.3.5.2.b states: "Number of Armed Security Contracts/TOs administered in the last 7 years (Prime Only)"; and HTRO Self Scoring Matrix row 10 states: "# of Armed Security Contracts/TOs administered in the last 7 years (prime only) with at least 2 separate performance locations OCONUS (≥10 FTEs at each location)"; and Cross Reference Matrix row 12 states: "Number of Armed Security Contracts/TOs administered in the last 7 years (Prime Only) with at least 2 separate performance locations OCONUS (≥10 FTEs at each location)."
| Question(s): Looking at the numbering conventions used in section L-3.3.5.2.b and in both matrices, it appears that the intent may have been that these three items were to define the same requirement; however, the language is inconsistent. [a] Can the Government please confirm that these three (3) items all refer to the same requirement? [b] If so, can the Government please update the language so that it is consistent across all three (3) documents? | Please see update - Updated and consistent | 0004 | Closed |
| Q80 | References: |
Section L-3.3.5.4 states: "DEFINITION: The work samples for this category must be specific to private security services performed by the Offeror at OCONUS locations within the last 7 years as a prime or subcontractor unless stated otherwise."; and
Section L-3.3.5.4.a states: "Number of Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders administered in the last 7 years (Prime Only) with at least 2 separate OCONUS Geographic Locations providing Protective Security Details (PSD) or Protective Security Services (PSS)"; and
HTRO Self Scoring Matrix row 13 states: "Number of Armed Contracts/Task Orders administered in the last 7 years (Prime or Subcontractor) at a single point in time at OCONUS Geographic Locations providing Protective Security Details (PSD) or Protective Security Services (PSS)"; and
Cross Reference Matrix row 18 states: "Number of Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders administered in the last 7 years (Prime or Subcontractor) at a single point in time in OCONUS Geographic Locations providing Protective Security Details (PSD) or Protective Security Services (PSS).."
| Question: Looking at the numbering conventions used in section L-3.3.5.4.a and in both matrices, it appears that the intent may have been that these three (3) items were to define the same requirement; however, the language is inconsistent. [a] Can the Government please confirm that these three (3) items all refer to the same requirement? [b] Can the Government please confirm that experience as either a prime or a subcontractor is acceptable? [c] Can the Government please confirm that the "2 separate OCONUS Geographic Locations" does not apply to this requirement? [d] Can the Government please update the language so that it is consistent across all three (3) documents? | Please see updated documents - Updated and consistent | 0004 | Closed |
| Q81 | References: |
Section L-3.3.5.4 states: "DEFINITION: The work samples for this category must be specific to private security services performed by the Offeror at OCONUS locations within the last 7 years as a prime or subcontractor unless stated otherwise."; and
Section L-3.3.5.4.b states: "Number of EDD/DDD Teams that are trained, certified, deployed, and managed OCONUS within the last 7 years (Prime Only)"; and
HTRO Self Scoring Matrix row 14 states: "Number of EDD/DDD Teams that are trained, certified, deployed, and managed OCONUS at a single point in time within the last 7 years (Prime Only)"; and
Cross Reference Matrix row 19 states: "Number of EDD/DDD Teams that are trained, certified, deployed, and managed OCONUS at a single point in time within the last 7 years (Prime Only)."
| Question: Looking at the numbering conventions used in section L-3.3.5.4.b and in both matrices, it appears that the intent may have been that these three (3) items were to define the same requirement; however, the language is inconsistent. [a] Can the Government please confirm that these three (3) items all refer to the same requirement? [b] Can the Government please confirm that experience as either a prime or a subcontractor is acceptable? [c] Can the Government please update the language so that it is consistent across all three (3) documents? | Please see updated documents. - Reviewed and updated for cosistency | 0004 | Closed |
| Q82 | References: |
Section L-3.3.5.4 states: "DEFINITION: The work samples for this category must be specific to private security services performed by the Offeror at OCONUS locations within the last 7 years as a prime or subcontractor unless stated otherwise."; and
Section L-3.3.5.4.c states: "Number of personnel on Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders requiring contract life support administered in in any 36-month period in the past last 7 years (Prime Only)"; and
HTRO Self Scoring Matrix row 9 states: "Number of personnel on Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders who received OCONUS contractor-provided housing and life support in any 36-month period in the past 7 years"; and
Cross Reference Matrix row 20 states: "Number of personnel on Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders who received OCONUS contractor-provided housing and life support in any 36-month period in the past last 7 years."
| Question: Looking at the numbering conventions used in section L-3.3.5.4.c and in both matrices, it appears that the intent may have been that these three (3) items were to define the same requirement; however, the language is inconsistent. [a] Can the Government please confirm that these three (3) items all refer to the same requirement? [b] Can the Government please confirm that experience as either a prime or a subcontractor is acceptable? [c] Can the Government please update the language so that it is consistent across all three (3) documents? | Reviewed and Updated for consistency | 0004 | Closed |
| Q83 | References: Section L, Section M, HTRO Self Scoring Matrix and Cross Reference Matrix | ||
| Question: There are multiple instances where the language of the requirements in Section L, Section M, HTRO Self Scoring Matrix and Cross Reference Matrix do not match. If such inconsistencies should still be present in the final solicitation documents, please advise as to which document's requirements should take precedence. | They should be consistant. - Agree. Reviewed for consistency | 0004 | Closed |
| Q84 | Reference(s): |
Section L-2.6.2 states: "Offerors must provide proof of a current US or NATO Facility clearance at the SECRET level, in accordance with DoDD 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. This SECRET level clearance requirement applies to both the prime contractor and any subcontractors involved in the project. The Offeror must submit proof of a facilities clearance at the time of proposal submission.
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 .