Round 2 Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MSC Financial Management Support Services
- Solicitation number
- finanmanag_25R4034solicitation
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Solicitation Amendment 0004.pdf | ||
| Round 2 Questions and Answers Clarification.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| Solicitation Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1- Pricing Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Round 1 Questions and Answers.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Final Financial Management Solicitation.pdf | ||
| CDRL 12.pdf | ||
| CDRL 02.pdf | ||
| CDRL 07.pdf | ||
| CDRL 05.pdf | ||
| CDRL 03.pdf | ||
| CDRL 06.pdf | ||
| CDRL 10.pdf | ||
| CDRL 04.pdf | ||
| CDRL 08.pdf | ||
| CDRL 09.pdf | ||
| CDRL 11.pdf | ||
| CDRL 01.pdf | ||
| Final Financial Management Solicitation.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 - Question Submission Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1- Pricing Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 3 - Past Performance Information Sheet.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionaire.pdf |
Show all 26
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
Attachment 2 Financial Management Question and Answers Spreadsheet
| Reference (ie: Attachment # or PWS paragraph) | Comment/Question | Answers |
| PWS 4.1.1 | What level of access will be granted to financial systems like NERP, Navy Data Platform (NDP), and Advana for data extraction, reporting, and analysis? | The contractor will be granted read only access to all systems. If it is determined, during performance of the contract, that more system acess is required, it will be addressed at that time. |
| PWS 4.1.1 | Are there any restrictions on importing/exporting financial data between these systems or sharing them with external reporting stakeholders? | Yes. The contractor is not expected to share data with external stakeholders. |
| PWS 4.1.1 | Are specific data formats (e.g., CSV, Excel, system-specific formats) required for internal use, reporting, or archiving financial data? | The only format requirements are detailed in the "format/medium" column of the Deliverables Schedule contained in Technical Exhibit 2 of the solicitation. |
| PWS 4.1.1 | Will data integration tools be provided for consolidating data from different sources, or is the contractor responsible for implementing custom integration solutions? | MSC has exisiting tools. We do not currently foresee the need for additional tools at this time. |
| PWS 4.1.3 | To what extent are we expected to create custom financial reports versus leveraging standard templates? | It is unclear at this time whether existing tools and templates will be sufficient. |
| PWS 4.1.1.5 | Are there guidelines for how frequently financial data should be updated or reviewed regarding monthly reports, real-time tracking, or other intervals? | Technical Exhibit 1 within the PWS provides guidelines on how frequently contract related deliverables should be updated and distributed. That table encompasses all Contract Data Requirements. |
| PWS 4.2.1.1 | Is there a formalized change control process for NERP upgrades or migrations, and how will proposed changes be communicated to the contractor? | Yes there is a formalized process handled by the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Manpower, Logistics, and Business Solutions (MLB) the system owner. Contractor will be ingested into the process as all of the other T2 participants |
| PWS 4.2.1.2 | Are there any immediate or planned NERP module upgrades we should prioritize (e.g., Sales and Distribution, Funds Management, or Asset Management)? | Per system owner, all modules are included in NERP upgrades. There are no specific prioritization given to a particular module |
| PWS 4.2.1.2 | Are there any known inefficiencies or pain points in current business processes that the government expects us to address through NERP process optimization? | There are pain points regarding system interface issues. Also the Navy is preparing for an audit so all business processes are open for optimization. |
| PWS 4.2.1.5 | Are there existing SOPs related to integrated business processes that we can reference, or are we expected to create them from scratch? | There are some existing SOPs. Expectation is that the Contractor will create SOPs from scratch or modify existing, whichever is required to document the procedure. |
| PWS 4.2.1.3 | How many personnel require NERP training, and what is the expected format (e.g., virtual, classroom, or on-the-job)? | All new MSC users and/or existing users that obtain new roles may require training. Training can be virtual, classroom or on-the-job depending on the user access role. |
The user base was 1609 personnel as of 2/24/2025, 302 personnel trained in 2024.
| PWS 4.2.1.3 | Is there an existing training curriculum, or does the contractor have flexibility in designing a tailored program? | There is an existing training curriculum, however there is flexibility in designing a tailored program. |
| PWS 4.3.1.1 | What is the scope of the internal controls to be tested, specifically regarding financial reporting, funds management, and procure-to-pay processes? | This is all encompassing across the financial management spectrum for all MSC business lines. |
| PWS 4.3.1.1 | Has MSC identified key areas of concern or audit findings from previous years that should be prioritized during testing? | Yes; resulting from Command and Higher Headquarters assessments as well external audit. Audit findings will be disclosed after award to the awardee. |
| PWS 4.3.1.3 | How will corrective actions be tracked and measured for effectiveness? | This is currently done through Share Point tools. |
| PWS 4.3.1.3 | Will the contractor be responsible for developing new CAPs or only implementing government-defined plans? | Both. |
| PWS 4.3.3 | Are there other departments, external auditors, or stakeholders to coordinate with when addressing OMB A-123 compliance and corrective actions? | All external stakeholder interfaces will be in conjunction with MSC personnel when required. |
| PWS 4.4.2 | What existing business processes within MEBO are considered high-priority for improvement, particularly those impacting financial reporting or master data management? | Business processes regarding Financial Management (funds control, Controlling including settlement and assessments and project structures) are high-priority |
| PWS 4.4.2 | Are there existing known deficiencies within the MEBO operations that we need to address at the start of the contract? | Yes |
| PWS 4.4.3.2 | How will help desk tickets and performance be tracked (e.g., SLAs, key performance indicators)? | SLA are set via ticket priority. Tickets are tracked via dashboard, with measures on both incident and tasks backlog (e. g. avg days open , resolution code, etc.). |
| PWS 4.4.3.2 | Is the contractor expected to provide its ticket management system, or will an existing system be provided? | The Government has an existing system that will be provided. |
| PWS 4.4.3.8 | What configuration management processes and tools are currently in place, and are there known gaps or improvements expected from the contractor? | A configuration management plan and process is in place. Contractor expectation is facilitation of current plan. There are no known gaps, however no process is perfect and suggestions for improvements are expected. |
| PWS 4.4.3.8 | How frequently should configuration items, business rules, and procedures be reviewed and updated? | Semi-annually. This has been added to section 4.4.3.8 in the PWS |
| PWS 4.5.1 | Can you provide examples of past special projects or ad hoc financial reports to understand their complexity and scope better? | Not at this time. |
| PWS 4.5.1 | How are priorities set when multiple ad hoc requests arise simultaneously? | Multiple ad hoc priorities will be sorted out through the COR as they are identified. |
| PWS 4.5.2 | Are there any ongoing or planned process improvement initiatives related to audit readiness or financial execution that the contractor should align with? | These are primarily tied to existing corrective action plans addressing identified weaknesses. |
| PWS 4.5.2 | What autonomy will the contractor have in identifying, proposing, and implementing improvements versus relying on government approval? | Contractor will have to coordinate all corrective actions with MSC management and obtain approval before acting. This has been added to section 4.5.2 in the PWS |
| PWS 4.6.1 | Which areas (e.g., financial analysis, reconciliation processes, ERP usage) should be prioritized during the knowledge transfer process? | We have not established priorities at this point in time. |
| PWS 4.6.1 | Are there critical knowledge gaps already identified that the contractor should address early on? | Not currently identified as such. |
| PWS 4.6.2 | What level of involvement is expected from government personnel during side-by-side training, documentation review, and other transfer activities? | They will need to be fully engaged to enable them to learn the process. |
| PWS 4.6.2 | Will the contractor be responsible for ongoing knowledge transfer beyond the initial period, especially for newly hired government personnel? | Knowledge transfer will occur throughout the duration of the contract. In accordance with paragraph 1.4.1,this transferred knowledge will enable the reduction of support efforts on the part of the contractor starting during the third year of the contract |
| What is the current contract number? | This is a new contract. | |
| Does the Government currently utilize a Governance of Data Board/Group that provides oversight of current data structures? | Yes. | |
| What systems does the Government currently use for access management to applications/systems? | Naval Identity Services (NIS) - Identity Credential and Assess Management (ICAM). | |
| PWS 4.3.1 | We noted the four focus areas the OMB A-123 Sustainment efforts will be on. However, is there any further insight into other potential areas that MSC may want to target in addition to the four focus areas already mentioned? | All financial management business areas will eventually be included (e.g., Acquire-to-Retire, Budget-to-Report, Hire-to-Retire, Order-to-Cash and Procure-to-Pay). |
| PWS 1.5 | What are the contractor requirements regarding security clearance levels? | Security Requirements are listed at 1.5.6. Any personnel required to access and handle CUI necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities, must obtain and maintain minimum required investigation (T1) through the duration of the contract. |
| PWS 1.5.4 | With the change in administration and on-going changes within the federal workspace, is there any projection of changes in Place of Performance that was outlined in the PWS? | No, we still expect the work to be primarily performed at the contractor's facility. |
| PWS 4 | Are there any incumbents for any of the tasks listed in the PWS? If so, can you please provide their name/names? | This is a new requirement for MSC so all of the work has never been done before on one contract. However, MSC has a contract with the Navy for the MEBO support services identified in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the PWS. The contract number is N00178-19-D-8356 N0017422F3005, the contractor is PSI Pax. |
| PWS 1.5.7 | A Phase-Out Period was annotated in the PWS, however how much time is allocated for the contractor post contract-award to conduct onboarding activities? If information on this is not currently available, will this be discussed/outlined during the Post-Award Conference? | This will be discussed during the Post-Award Conference. |
| Page 1 | Is it possible to receive an extension due to the short turnaround time dependent on when Q&A responses will be published? | Yes, we have extended the solicitation deadline to 10 March 2025, via Solicitation Amendment 0002 |
| Attachment # 1 Pricing Spreadsheet | CLINs 1 and 2 reference paragraph 5.X of the PWS, should they be aligned to 4.X of the PWS (page 10 of 79, Part 4 – 4. Specific Tasks)? | Yes, this was corrected and the revised pricing spreadsheet was posted with Amendment 0001. |
| Page 31 Para ii. | Magnitude, we feel the government's magnitude of $10M is high given that this is an 8(a) set-aside. As a long time 8(a) company contracts of that size are increasingly rare. Would the government consider lowering this magnitude to ~$7.5M | No. The magnitude will not be amended. |
| Page 29 Req 1 | Is providing a 2023 annual report and financial statement enough to satisfy the "Copy of current financial statement and annual report" requirement? | The requirement in FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 1 of Volume I has been reworded to state "1. Copy of previous fiscal year's financial statement and annual report for the company and its parent company (if applicable), or furnish evidence of adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain such resources" |
| RFP Page 31, Volume IV: Pricing | Can the government please clarify what it means by "Zero-dollar unit prices are permissible"? This does not seem applicable since the PWS tasks are required and not optional. | This language in FAR 52.212-1 (Volume IV, Price) of the solicitation has been modified to state, "Zero-dollar unit prices are NOT permissible" |
| RFP Page 31, Volume IV: Pricing | The government states that "Unit prices must be submitted in whole cent values", but then later in the paragraph states "Unit prices should be rounded to the whole dollar for each category listed". Can the government clarify if they require prices to be rounded to the whole cent values or whole dollar values? | This language in FAR 52.212-1 (Volume IV, Price) of the solicitation has been modified to state, "Unit prices must be rounded to the nearest whole dollar". |
| PWS Paragraph 1.5.6-1.5.6.5 | The RFP does not appear to have a DD-254 and PWS 1.5.6.1 states that personnel requiring access to CUI must obtain and maintain a T1 investigation. Given the nature of the work, can the government please confirm that no positions will require a Secret (or higher) clearance? | We can confirm that there will be no positions requiring a secret or higher clearance. The work will not include handling any classified information. |
| Attachment 1 | Attachment 1 lists the PWS tasks as 5.1-5.5, but the PWS appears to have those same tasks as 4.1-4.5. Can the government please update the Attachment 1 references or clarify the discrepancy? | The tasks being listed as 5.1-5.5 on Attachment 1 was an error. This has been amended and Attachment 1 has been re-uploaded with the correct reference numbers. |
| Attachment 1 | Can the government please clarify why CLIN 0001 is listed as 12 months and CLIN 0002 is listed as 10 months, but then CLINs 1001-5001 are all encompassing 12 month periods? Is there a staggered start in the base period or tasks expected to discontinue in the option periods? | As stated at 1.4 within the PWS, The base year will run for 12 consecutive months. The PoP for services described in sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the PWS will be 27 March 2025 - 26 March 2026; this is CLIN 0001. The services described in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the PWS are currently being performed under another contract. Because of this, the work detailed in those sections will not begin under this contract until 27 June 2025; this is CLIN 0002. |
| Solicitation, page 1, Block 8 | We respectfully request that the government consider extending the offer due date by one week in light of govwin notice which originally released the RFP as a draft pre-RFP solicitation on 21 Jan. The correction on SAM.gov which removed the DRAFT watermark was posted on 28 Jan. | We have extended the solicitation deadline to 10 March 2025, via Solicitation Amendment 0002 |
| Solicitation, page 6, 1.5.12 - Personnel Qualifications | Are Key Personnel defined as only one FTE associated with each of the 10 named labor categories in sections 1.5.12.1 through 1.5.12.10 or does it pertain to all 31 FTEs identified in Technical Exhibit 3 on page 22? | The term "Key Personnel" has been removed from the PWS via Amendment 0003. All of the positions are of equal importance and each has their own qualifications. |
As stated in Technical Exhibit 3, we provided the estimated workload for the base year of the contract. These are Government generated estimated amounts; it is up to the offeror to determine its own labor mix that is necessary to perform all of the work detailed in this PWS. .
| Solicitation, page 31, Volume III, Factor 2, Section 1 - Past Performance Information Sheet | Would the government consider removal of the recency requirement of at least one-year provided that the Offeror submits a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 4) for those contracts that are too recent for a CPARS? | The Government will not change the definition of "recent" for Past Performance. |
| Solicitation, page 31, Volume III, Factor 2, Section 1, Part ii - Magnitude | Most 8(a) companies benefit from direct awards that are limited to $4.5M in total contract value. Since it has been determined to compete this work for 8(a) Offerors, would the government consider lowering the minimum size threshold to $4.5M? Or alternatively, would to government allow companies which have multiple and/or consecutive $4.5M contracts for the same Command to connect the efforts and demonstrate a total contract value and contract length of all work performed at that Command? | No. The $10M threshold will not be amended. |
| Solicitation, page 32, Evaluation, Bullet 1 | The RFP states: “The Government will evaluate offers using a Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process in accordance with FAR 15.101-2.” However, given the technical expertise and skills needed to complete the tasks outlined in the Solicitation, would the government consider a best value tradeoff process, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.? | LPTA has been determined to be the source section methodology that will achieve the best value for this acquisition. We do not have criteria which we are willing to trade off against price; instead our technical criteria focuses on organizational experience to ensure that offerors have the experience we need doing similar work. |
| Solicitation, page 6, 1.5.12 - Personnel Qualifications, Staff Accountant | The government is requiring a CPA for the Senior Accountant and Staff Accountant labor categories. A Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM) and Certified Defense Financial Manager (CDFM) indicates a broader expertise applicable to the Navy. Further, the Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) is world-renowned as the standard of achievement for auditing, monitoring, and assessing IT and business systems, and also acknowledges the importance of emerging technologies, which is key for performing FISCAM control testing. Would the government consider accepting a Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM), Certified Defense Financial Manager (CDFM), or Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) as one of the acceptable certifications in place of a CPA? | Senior Accountant and at least one of the Staff Accountants must be licensed Certified Public Accountants. The remaining Staff Senior Accountants may hold an active designation as a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) or Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM) or Certified Defense Financial Manager (CDFM). |
This change was made via Amendment 0001. Please see the applicable PWS provisions in 1.5.12.4 and 1.5.12.5.
| Solicitation, page 29, 4 Standard Form 1449 (page 1 with blocks 17 and 30) | The Solicitation states, “ 4. Standard Form 1449 (page 1 of solicitation) with blocks 17 and 30 completed (signed and dated). Failure to do so may lead to rejection of the Proposal.” Solicitation asks for a completed SF1449 to be returned, but on the 1449 it requires 2 copies to be returned. Can the government clarify if 1 or 2 copies of the SF1449 are required to be returned? | Please submit one (1) copy of the SF1449. |
| Page 30, Solicitation | Please confirm which of the following will/will not count against the page limit for each volume: a.) a cover page, b.) a Table of Contents, c.) a glossary of acronyms/abbreviations, d.) a list of tables/figures. | Yes, those pages count against page limits. We have increased the page limit in FAR 52.212-1 by 10 pages on each volume via Amendment 0003 |
| Pages 29 & 31, Solicitation | Please confirm: Is a signed SF 1449 required in both Volume I (per the instructions on page 29, #4) and Volume IV (per the instructions on page 31 under Volume IV: Pricing)? | The Offeror shall submit one (1) copy of the SF1449 with Volume I only. The language requiring a signed SF1449 in Volume IV has been removed via Amendment 0003 |
| Pages 22 & 31, Solicitation | On page 22 of the solicitation an itemized Supplies/Services list begins with blanks to fill in pricing amounts. Please confirm this should be filled out and provided by Offerors within Volume IV: Pricing. | This is the start of the CLINs for the contract. Nothing should be filled out in this area. Instead, the pricing spreadsheet should be used. |
| Pages 22, 28 & 31, Solicitation ; Attachment 1: Pricing Spreadsheet | Page 28 of the solicitation indicates that Volume IV Pricing should consist of one (1) file in Excel format. However, the instructions for Volume IV on page 31 request that it includes a signed SF 1449, which would typically be provided in PDF format. Also, there is a section beginning on page 22 of the solicitation with an itemized Supplies/Services list with blanks to fill in pricing amounts. Please confirm that Volume IV should consist of two (2) files: one in PDF format consisting of the SF 1449 and the pricing fill-ins from page 22, and another in Excel format (Attachment 1: Pricing Spreadsheet). | The price proposal shall consist of a completed copy of the Pricing Spreadsheet provided with this |
solicitation (attachment 1 of the solicitation). A completed or signed 1449 is not required. See Response to Question in row 60 above.
| Attachment 3: Past Performance Information Sheet ; Page 29, Solicitation | Question #12 on Attachment 3 states that additional details can be attached to the form to answer that question, provided it does not exceed two pages. Please clarify: Would any extra pages attached for question #12 count against the total page limit for Volume III? | Yes, additional attachments would count against the page limit. |
| Page 29, Solicitation ; Attachment 3: Past Performance Information Sheet | Please clarify page limitations on Volume III: Past Performance. The solicitation requests up to three past performance examples. Attachment 3: Past Performance Information Sheet consists of 3 pages on its own, blank. A quantity of three Attachment 3's would consist of 9 pages total, already in excess of the 8-page limit for the entire volume indicated on page 29 of the solicitation. Furthermore, question #12 on Attachment 3 states that additional details can be attached to the form to answer that question, provided it does not exceed two pages. If hypothetically an Offeror provided three Attachment 3's, each with the two allowed extra pages for question #12, that would total 15 pages. Would the Government therefore consider changing the page limit on Volume III to 15 pages? | Yes, we have revised the page limit for Volume III to 18 pages. |
| Page 29, Solicitation ; Attachment 4: Past Performance Questionnaire | Please confirm that, if Attachment 4: Past Performance Questionnaire is submitted (sent directly from the awarding organization's POC to the PCO), it would not count against the page limit on Volume III. | Past Performance Questionnaires would be sent directly from the organization's (that you performed work for) PCO to the MSC contracting office. Therefore, the questionnaire would not count against the page limit for the offeror's proposal submission. |
| Page 12, Solicitation, 5.4.2.1 | On page 12 of the Solicitation, immediately after 4.4.2 and immediately before 4.4.3, there is a paragraph numbered 5.4.2.1. Is this meant to be numbered 4.4.2.1 instead? | Yes, "5.4.2.1" should read "4.4.2.1", this has been revised via Solicitation Amendment 0003 |
| Attachment 1: Pricing Spreadsheet ; Page 22, 23 & 10, Solicitation | On Attachment 1: Pricing Spreadsheet, the PWS references (5.1, 5.2, etc.) in CLINs 0001 and 0002 do not match the PWS references in the Solicitation for CLINs 0001 and 0002 (page 22 & 23) / Part 4 – Specific Tasks (page 10). Could the Government please update the file(s) to have matching PWS references in all locations? | The pricing spreadsheet was updated to match the PWS via Amendment 0001. |
| Attachment 1: Pricing Spreadsheet ; Page 22, Solicitation | The Unit measurement for each CLIN in Attachment 1: Pricing Spreadsheet is “Months,” however in the solicitation (page 22) the Unit measurement for each CLIN is “Each”. Please confirm: should the amount offerors enter in the blank “Amount” line for each CLIN on page 22 of the solicitation match the amount in column F (Total) of Attachment 1? | The unit of measure has been changed from "each" to "months" within the 1449 via Amendment 0003. |
| Page 29, #3, Solicitation | Regarding the instructions on page 29 for Volume I, #3: Please clarify: If an Offeror has subcontractors (but is not a joint venture), will providing our Teaming Agreements executed between the prime and subcontractors, as well as an explanation of the subcontractors' meaningful involvement, suffice to meet this requirement? | Please see the amended language for Volume I, #3. |
| Page 29, #3, Solicitation | The last sentence under #3 on page 29 reads, "Copies of joint venture agreement, explanations of meaningful involvement, and letters of commitment from each subcontractor or affiliates shall render the proposal ineligible for award." Could you please clarify if this is written as intended? Is it meant to say that failure to provide these may render a proposal ineligible for award? | Yes, this language has been corrected via Amendment 0003. |
| 1.5.4 Place of Performance, Solicitation | Will the Government clarify if there are any occasions where personnel, other than the Program Manager, will be required to support meetings at MSC facilities in Norfolk, VA? | The program manager is the only staff member that will be required to support quarterly meetings at MSC facilities in Norfolk, VA. |
| PWS 4.2 NERP Sustainment, Migration, and Implementation, Solicitation | Can the Government provide a status of their Navy ERP implementation timeline? (i.e. how far along is MSC with their Navy ERP implementation and does MSC have a status on their implementation of Navy ERP+ & S/4HANA)? | MSC is in sustainment for NERP ECC and fully participating with FMS in the implementation of NERP+. |
| PWS 4.2 NERP Sustainment, Migration, and Implementation, Solicitation | Can the Government please clarify if MSC's instance of NERP has business objects or are BI reports still ran in BeX? | NERP has business objects. |
| 4.2.1.5, Solicitation | Can the Government please quantify the annual amount of Tier 2 helpdesk activity they receive in a given fiscal Year? (i.e. How many helpdesk tickets are routed through the MEBO per year)? | We received approximately ~5500 tickets in FY24 and we have received approximately ~1100 tickets thus far in FY25. |
| 4.2.1.5, Solicitation | Can the Government please quantify the monthly amount of Tier 2 helpdesk activity they receive in a given month? (i.e. How many helpdesk tickets are routed through the MEBO per month?) | An average of 300 per month. |
| 4.2.1.5, Solicitation | Can the Government please provide a breakdown of Tier 2 tickets per month by NERP Module? If not, can the Government please identify which NERP module receives the most Tier 2 support requests on a monthly basis? | The Materials Management module. 110 incidents created per month. We average 237 incidents per month for all modules. |
| 4.4.4.1, Solicitation | Would the Government please clarify what systems they are referring to when they say "The Contractor shall support metrics collection and reporting, triage support, interaction with the multiple systems under the MEBO’s purview." | NERP and the associated system interfaces, e. g. SPS, DAAS, DCPS, AVPM, etc. |
| 4.4.4.3 Reporting, Solicitation | Can the Government quantify the number of existing reports the contractor will be responsible for supporting? | Approximately 50 reports. |
| 4.4.4.4.2, Solicitation | Would the Government please clarify what systems/environments they are referring to in 4.4.4.4.2? "This effort will include the organization and utilization of legacy data management, including both archived and active legacy environments" | MSC-FMS, which is archived in Advana. |
| 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021), Page 32, #1, Solicitation | Given the potential risks associated with Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation procedures—such as the possibility of compromising quality, innovation, or long-term value—has the Government considered alternative evaluation methods that prioritize best value and reduce these risks to ensure the most effective outcomes for taxpayers and project success? | LPTA has been determined to be the source section methodology that will achieve the best value for this acquisition. We do not have criteria which we are willing to trade off against price; instead our technical criteria focuses on organizational experience to ensure that offerors have the experience we need doing similar work. |
| 1.5.12.2 Data Manager, Solicitation | Would the Government consider revising the Bachelors degree in Data Science requirement and consider other degrees such as Computer Science, Statistics, Mathematics, Business Analytics, Information Technology, Economics, and/or Engineering? This could increase the pool of qualified candidates, and potentially lower the overall cost for this position. | Yes, a Bachelors degree in Computer Science, Statistics, Mathematics and/or Business Analytics are also acceptable. The PWS has been modified to reflect this change. |
| 1.5.12.5 Staff Accountant, Solicitation | Would the Government consider removing the requirement for the Staff Accountant to have a CPA? Could this be substituted with additional years of experience or a combination of other relevant certifications (CDFM, CIA, CGFM, etc.)? Requiring only the CPA certification for this position could present additional costs for this role. | No. The Senior Accountant and at least one of the Staff Accountants must be licensed Certified Public Accountants. However, the remaining Staff Senior Accountants may hold an active designation as a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) or Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM) or Certified Defense Financial Manager (CDFM). The PWS was modified to reflect this change via Amendment 0001. Please see response to question in row 57 and please see the applicable PWS provisions in 1.5.12.4 and 1.5.12.5. |
| Page 31, 1, ii. Magnitude, Solicitation ; Attachment 3: Past Performance Information Sheet | Would the Government please clarify if a past performance contract needs to have already performed for 3 years, or if the contract must only have a period of performance of 3+ years to meet the duration magnitude requirement? For example, would a contract which started in September 2022 and ends in November 2025 meet the duration threshold for this evaluation criteria? The bold text from the below excerpt is what we’re looking to clarify. “The measure of the similarity of the volume, dollar value and/or duration of the work actually performed under the Offeror's submitted contracts to the PWS. Contracts with a total length (inclusive of options) of at least three (3) years and a total value (inclusive of options) of $10M or more will be considered of similar magnitude.” | The solicitation language has been modified via Amendment 0003 to remove "of the work actually performed" from the magnitude definition. |
| Page 31, Solicitation | Will the Government please confirm if it is allowable to use a representative past performance from a BPA that is longer than 3+ years, or does the representative past performance need to come from the Task Order level under the BPA? For example, if a contractor has a BPA that is good for 5+ years, but only has individual task orders that are 1 year in length, can they submit the overall BPA as past performance that meets the scope, magnitude, and complexity requirements? | Past performance is evaluating work performed. Because there is no work performed under the BPA or IDIQ vehicles themselves, those contract types would not meet the requirements. Thus, the representative past performance must come from the Task Order level of the contract. |
| Technical Exhibit 1, Page 17, Solicitation | Regarding PRS #2 & PRS #3: Does the Government have an already established/prescribed report format for these deliverables or will the Contractor be responsible for building these reports from scratch? If full development is required, will there be a negotiated delivery window for the first submission? | No prescribed format. The timeline for the first submission can be discussed during the award kickoff meeting. |
| Technical Exhibit 1, Page 17, Solicitation | Regarding PRS #2 & PRS #3: Has MSC already identified the financial objectives for these deliverables? | No |
| Technical Exhibit 1 & 2, Pages 17-21, Solicitation | Would the Government consider standardizing Frequency on the deliverables schedule? For example, some reports are due "by the 5th business day" and others "no later than the fifth working day of each month". Standardizing the frequency could reduce errors, streamline program management, and reduce costs. | Yes, we have standardized the frequency of the deliverables schedule in Amendment 0003. |
| 1.5.12, Page 6, Solicitation | Would the Government please confirm if every labor category listed is in fact Key Personnel (per 1.5.12)? | The term "Key Personnel" has been removed from the PWS via Amendment 0003. All of the positions are of equal importance and each has their own qualifications. |
| 1.5.12, Page 6, Solicitation | If every labor category is considered Key Personnel, does the Government require only one key personnel for every position for a total of 10 key personnel? For example, if there are multiple Mid-level SAP Subject Matter Experts, would only one of them be Key? | The term "Key Personnel" has been removed from the PWS via Amendment 0003. All of the positions are of equal importance and each has their own qualifications. |
| General Question | What is the total FTE for each task order? | This solicitation is for a Firm-Fixed Price, Single Award, C-Type Contract. This will not be an IDIQ contract with task orders. |
As stated in Technical Exhibit 3, we provided the estimated workload for the base year of the contract. These are Government generated estimated amounts; it is up to the offeror to determine its own labor mix that is necessary to perform all of the work detailed in this PWS. .
| General Question | Is the Project Manager the only key personnel resume needed in the RFP? | Please refer to FAR 52.212-1 in the solicitation for all proposal submission requirements. The Government is not requiring submission of resumes. It is the responsibility of the offeror to determine its own labor mix that is necessary to perform all of the work detailed in this PWS. The awardee will be responsible for hiring key personnel that meet all of the requirements in the PWS. If, during contract performance, the Government has reason to believe that a key personnel position is filled by an unqualified contractor employee, the COR will request a copy of the contractor’s resume to verify the minimum qualification requirements of the position are met. |
| General Question | he estimated Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions listed in Technical Exhibit 3 are based on government-generated estimates. Are these estimates considered firm, or is the contractor expected to propose an alternative staffing plan based on their own assessment? | These are Government generated estimated |
amounts; it is up to the offeror to determine its own labor mix that is necessary to perform all of the work detailed in the PWS.
| General Question | Are there any legacy financial management systems that will require data integration beyond those listed (e.g., NERP, Advana, Hyperion)? | No. |
| General Question | Are there anticipated fluctuations in workload throughout the contract period, such as increased demands during audits or fiscal year-end closeouts? | Yes. During FY close and FY startup there is a surge in demand by the system users. As well as having to ensure financial structure is in place to support the new year of execution. Audit taskers can be sporadic as well as scheduled throughout the year. Please see updated PWS section 1.4.2. |
| General Question | Will the contractor be responsible for developing automation solutions or enhancements for the financial reporting process, or is it purely an analytical role? | Automation is a FM&C priority. MSC has a need for automation. Please see updated PWS section 4.4.2.1. |
| General Question | What are the LCATS for the task orders? | This solicitation is for a Firm-Fixed Price, Single Award, C-Type Contract. This will not be an IDIQ contract with task orders. |
| General Question | What are the amount of billable hours per FTE? | This contract is Firm-fixed price. Please see PWS section 1.5.5. |
| General Question | Is there any facility clearance required? | Please refer to 1.5.4 and 1.5.6 of the PWS for information on the Place of Performance and the Security Requirements for personnel. A facility clearance is not required. |
| General Question | Is this a new requirement or recompete | This is a new requirement. |
| General Question | Should offerors include resumes for all key personnel at the time of submission, or can they provide general qualifications and submit resumes post-award? | Please see the questions above concerning removal of the phrase "key personnel" from the PWS. Please refer to FAR 52.212-1 in the solicitation for all proposal submission requirements. The Government is not requiring submission of resumes. It is the responsibility of the offeror to determine its own labor mix that is necessary to perform all of the work detailed in this PWS. The awardee will be responsible for hiring key personnel that meet all of the requirements in the PWS. If, during contract performance, the Government has reason to believe that a key personnel position is filled by an unqualified contractor employee, the COR will request a copy of the contractor’s resume to verify the minimum qualification requirements of the position are met. Please see PWS section 1.5.12. |
| General Question | If it is a recompete, who is the incumbent? | This is a new requirement. |
| General Question | Is DOD-Navy experience required for all staff or will DOD experience in different branches in financial management suffice? | The offeror is responsible for meeting all of the requirements as written in the PWS. |
| General Question | What will the role of the technical assistants serve? | Provide feedback to the COR on performance related questions/issues. |
| 4.4.4.5.8 | When stated " Serve as the Government Security Manager (GSM)/Facility Security Officer (FSO) delegate for role" can you provide more clarification on what this means and entails for the contractor? | In obtaining NERP user access roles, the T2 User Management (UM) module staff provide approval through the process. The UM contractor may need to provide approval for user access roles as a delegate to the Gov't UM approver. |
| 1.5.6.1 | Are there any security clearance requirements for personnel beyond the minimum Tier 1 investigation requirement listed in Section 1.5.6.1 | No, the requirements listed in Section 1.5.6.1 are the extent of the security requirements. |
| Request Incumbents Name and Contract Number (if these services are currently being performed by any incumbent vendor). | This is a new requirement. | |
| Attachment+1-+Pricing+Spreedsheet | Pricing spreadsheet addresses Section 5.1, 5.2 ,and 5.3 of the PWS in support of CLIN 0001 and option periods; did the government mean 4.1., 4.2, and 4.3? | Yes, this was corrected via Amendment 0001. |
| Attachment+1-+Pricing+Spreedsheet | Pricing spreadsheet address Sections 5.4 and5.5 under CLIN 0002 for MEBO support; did the government mean 4.4 and 4.5 of the PWS? Is this support only required for a base period of 10 months and no options? | Listing the tasks as 5.4 and 5.5 in the Pricing Spreadsheet was an error, this has been amended and Attachment 1 has been re-uploaded with the correct reference numbers. Per section 1.4 of the PWS, the MEBO support for the Base year will only be needed for 10 months (this is indicated in CLIN 0002). However, all option years (CLINS 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, and 5001) will contain all services described through sections 4.1 through 4.5. |
| Attachment+1-+Pricing+Spreedsheet | Are Offerors permitted to edit formulas provided within the Pricing Worksheet in order to ensure accuracy? | No, the offeror shall utilize the pricing spreadsheet that we have provided without editing the formulas. Enter your price for one month into the unit price column and the formula will multiply that by the quantity of months indicated to calculate the total price. We have revised the spreadsheet to round up or down to the nearest whole dollar. |
| Attachment+1-+Pricing+Spreedsheet | Are Offerors permitted to add tabs for each period of performance? | All periods of performance are listed on the pricing spreadsheet, please fill the existing spreadsheet out completely. Do not add any tabs to the spreadsheet. |
| Past Performance | Are sub partners' past performance allowed in conjunction with the prime's past performance? | MSC will be evaluating the offeror's past performance, not the performance of sub partners. |
| General Question | If an offeror submitted a proposal prior to the proposal submission deadline, do they need to resubmit the proposal? | Amendment 0003 added the requirement to submit signed copies of all amendments with Volume I of the solicitation. The offeror shall comply with this requirement and account for any other changes made to the PWS. |
| General Question | Will the Government provide the SF30 for Amendment 0001 instead of just the conform copy of the solicitation? | Yes, the SF30 for Amendment 0001 is now posted to SAM. Gov. |
| General Question | Amendment 0002 stated the new proposal submission deadline was 3:00pm EST on 10 March 2025. Please clarify because we are on EDT on 10 March 2025. | The proposal submission deadline is 3:00pm EDT on 10 March 2025. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .