3ISQuestionsAnswers_3Apr09.xls
XLS spreadsheet 179 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Innovation, Integration, and Information (3IS) Support Contract Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA2550-08-R-8009(RFP)
About this file
3IS Questions Answers 3 Apr 09
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| PWS Paragraph/RFP Section | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| Is the ITAR registration number sufficient? | Yes. | |
| Do you anticipate setting up a competitive range with a potential of several offerors? | The Government has considered establishing a competitive range, however, the final determination will be made once proposals have been received an the initial evaluation has been accomplished. | |
| What is the estimated award date? | May 2010 | |
| The recency requirement stated in Past Performance Section M indicates one year of performance required from RFP release. Since other required certifications of size and capability are based on time of offer/proposal submittal will the government consider aligning the recency requirement to one year from proposal submittal? | No, recency will be based on date of RFP release, 30 Mar 09. | |
| Of the 109M program budget how much is available for 3IS contract, separate from TSSOS in FY 10 and other operating costs? | The published FY10 budget is for the entire year. The 3IS base period is currently only 4.5 months, therefore, 4.5 months of the FY10 budget is what's available. | |
| Reference Instruction to Offerors, Paragraph 1.0, Budget/Funding Information: What is the dedicated budget for the 3IS contract, inclusive of Phase-in, starting in Jun 2010, the base period Jul thru Nov 2010, and the 5 one year option periods ending on 30 Nov 2015? The FY2010 budget of $17,750,000 appears on the surface that it should be split between the TSSOS extension and the 3IS Phase-in and Base period. The contract end date extends into FY2016: Are there funds budgeted in the FY2010 thru FY2015 POMs to cover the full contract period of performance which extends two months into FY2016? We are requesting the specific budget dedicated to the 3IS effort in order to ensure accuracy for our Team bid and manage within the appropriate funding allocation. | As discussed at the pre-proposal conference, and based on the answer to the question above, only 4.5 months of the 12 month FY10 budget is available for 3IS. There is no set budget for phase-in. The budget posted in Section L of the RFP and in the pre-proposal conference slides reflects the POM numbers. | |
| What is the driver for a 2010 award as opposed to 2009? | Due to the number of reviews, and the time required by each reviewing organization, 2010 is the most realistic at this time. | |
| Why are modeling and simulation the main focus for wargames? | Wargames is focused in this arena and the majority of the Wargame exercise is simulated. | |
| In regards to recency of past performance, can offerors list predecessor and current contracts on the same citation? | Older past performance does not mean that it is less relevant. Therefore, if the current contract is a follow-on to the predecessor, both may be listed as long as it was 3 years from RFP release. | |
| HAS THE WYLE CONTRACT BEEN EXTENDED? | The ordering period on the current TSSOS contract expires 30 Sep 09. The Government can place orders thru this date, and the orders may have periods of performance of up to 12 months. | |
| WHAT ARE THE TIMELINES FOR AWARD OF THE CONTRACT ; PHASE IN DATE; AND FULL CONTRACT RESPONSIBILITY DATE? | Anticipated contract award is May 2010; phase-in 15 Jun 2010 - 14 Jul 2010; full contract performance will begin 15 Jul 2010. | |
| Section L paragraph 3.3a requires position descriptions for each labor category using Attachment L-2. Customarily, position descriptions are somewhat generalized in their representation of functional/performance categories. This allows more than one individual to serve against any given position description. This serves a benefit to the Government in the form of more simplified (less expensive) pricing certification as well as labor cost tracking during execution. As currently structured, Attachment L-2 additionally requires primary, secondary, and additional duties and a man-year breakdown table. This requirement resembles an individual’s job description. Using this form will likely then require a unique position description for each person proposed by the offeror (>100). If this is not the government’s intent, we recommend the Government either delete the requirement to use Attachment L-2 and allow offers to provide one page labor category positions in their own format or delete the specification of primary, secondary, and additional duties from Attachment L-2. We believe the staffing table, matched with past performance and pricing will present a sufficiently high-fidelity insight into each offer’s approach to allow a best value selection. | Attachment L-2 has been updated to delete secondary and tertiary duties and the table. | |
| Paragraph 4.1, Security Requirements - Will the current SIDC Alutiiq security tasks fall under the 3IS contract or will their contract continue as an independent effort? This will affect the offerors’ pricing for security tasks. | Security requirements identified in the 3IS PWS is for the contractors' industrial security, NOT support to the SIDC Security Office. The successful offeror will be responsible for the clearances, visits request, escorting, etc of their team members. | |
| Paragraph 1.4.6.1.1 lists the number of information systems the offeror is to support. Do the numbers provided include the systems and equipment at the NSSI and systems and equipment used for war games? This will affect the offerors’ pricing for IT support. | The approximate numbers of systems, CPUs, helpdesk tickets, etc. in the IT area of the PWS includes support to the NSSI. | |
| Paragraph 1.4.4.2, Schriever Wargame Series - states “…work done in this area will be added as requirements are identified and funding becomes available.” Does the Government desire this section to be priced as part of the base or as a priced option, including priced mentors? If yes, mentors will have to be identified and contacted for appropriate pricing information. We recommend requirements in this section not be priced at this time but as an option after award and upon the need and availability of funding. This will benefit the Government by standardizing the offerors’ pricing approaches. | Areas where "work done in this area will be added as requirements are identified and funding becomes available," should not be priced, but included in the Staffing Plan and Past Performance in these areas should be presented. | |
| Page one of the Phase-Out plan states transition will continue as long as tasks/sub-tasks are active on the TSSOS contract. To properly prepare a Cost/Price proposal, especially for the Phase-In and Base periods, the offeror needs to have some quantification of what those efforts are anticipated to be. To standardize the offerors’ pricing approaches, we recommend the Government state (or perhaps emphasize) all aspects of the PWS (except for 1.4.4.2 as suggested above) are to be priced without regard to tasks/subtasks that may be continued under TSSOS. | Phase-in and the base period is for the basic level of service in the PWS. The tasks that will continue are those that are funded by outside agencies and are not part of the basic effort. These tasks will continue under the TSSOS contract until completion. | |
| If an 8(a) company submits their proposal while still an 8(a) certified company but graduates from the 8(a) program prior to award, will it’s proposal still be considered? | 8(a) eligibility will be determined at proposal submission. | |
| Page 124 of the solicitation, Para 2.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Security. Sub Para 2.1.2.a and b.states that the contractor must” provide evidence of SCIF possession and ITAR registration” What specific form of evidence or documentation is required? | Documented evidence will include ITAR registration # and SCIF location, previous certification #, etc. If a question arises, the Government will inspect the facility to determine certifibility of facility. | |
| Can you clarify the language on page 125, Section 2.2, that states that key personnel will be evaluated, and that personal past performance for key personnel shall be submitted using the Past Performance Questionnaire? | Key Personnel are those personnel that you are presenting personal past performance on. Personal past performance shall be submitted using the PPQ. | |
| Why aren’t PM ODC item costs provided? | No ODCs are expected for PM. The ODC line is in case the Government needs to add ODCs later. | |
| Are the ODC amounts in Table L-2 on page 117 correct? | No. There are no ODCs for phase-in and the FY10 amounts are for a full year, not the 4.5 months of the base period. An amendment to the RFP will clarify this. | |
| Are we required to send both electronic and hard copies of our proposal to the cognizant DCMA and DCAA offices, or just electronic versions? | Yes. The applicable paragraphs of Section L have been amended. | |
| Will the school house facility be furnished by the government? | The Government will furnish all facilities. | |
| Amplification on the government provided facilities. Can we find out where they are and what exactly is included (e.g. space, connections, equipment)? | Sq ft provided in the RFP and connectivity and office equipment will be provided. | |
| What is the fall back plan or requirement if the government provided facilities fall thru for whatever reason? | The Government will furnish all facilities. | |
| It was stated during the pre-proposal conference that the requirements in the PWS that are unfunded, 1.4.4.1.1 Systems Integration, 1.4.4.2 Schriever Wargame Series, and 1.4.5.2.1.3 “…additional 17 TS test execution…” should not be accounted for in our cost proposal. Should we include these requirements in our past performance relevancy matrix to show technical coverage? Should we just ignore them outright? Since the staffing plan and past performance relevancy matrix are both tied to the PWS we must account for both the cost and technical aspects. | These areas should not be priced, but included in the Staffing Plan and Past Performance should be presented. | |
| PWS paragraph 1.4.5.2.1.1 states “Support approximately fifteen (15) annual tests for the 17 TS and ten (10) range modernization tests for 17 TS Det 3 at Patrick AFB/Vandenberg AFB in the role of test analyst, assistant test manager, data collector, and/or test tool developer.” The industry day slides state that the FY 09 budget for the 17 TS is $800,000. Does the government plan for the contractor to provide all test support personnel for these 15 annual tests at the 17 TS within the stated $800,000 budget? | The 10 range modernization tests are for Det 3 (budgets) provided. The basic support for the 17TS is for Planning, tool development scheduling, and training and standardization for all of the 17TS. PWS updated to clarify. | |
| Regarding 2.2.1.1 in Section L, “Recency Assessment: there is a new caveat in the “Recency” requirement that states: “…and must have been performed for at least one (1) year as of the date of RFP release.” Our team has a “Relevant” past performance citation that was awarded on 15 Apr 08 and started Transition, 25 Apr 08. Request that the RFP be amended to “…as of the date of proposal submission”. Please consider adjusting the one year recency to be by proposal submittal instead of RFP release. This would align well with other certifications and representations as they are all at proposal submittal. | No, recency will be from RFP release. Recency will also be a 12 month cycle not 365 day so April to March is 12 months. | |
| Regarding Section M TENCAP “Relevancy”, there is a new caveat in the “NOT RELEVANT” criteria stating: “Citations involved management and oversight but not execution of….”. This seems ambiguous; please clarify the difference between “execution” and “management and oversight”. For instance, one could “manage an R&D program” by designing, integrating or operating a tech demo program…but not actually physically develop the actual product (i.e. bolt some hardware together). Would this qualify as “execute”? The TENCAP “RELEVANT” criteria provides an example for “experience” as “including creating, modifying, integrating, maintaining or operating like systems”. Is this definition for “experience” equivalent to “execution”? | The example of experience provided “including creating, modifying, integrating, maintaining or operating like systems” is the equivalent of “execution." | |
| Paragraph 2.3 Proposal Delivery identifies the required delivery date and time for the proposal as “no later than 10:00 a.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) on 29 Apr 09.” Are we correct in our belief that this should reference Mountain Daylight Time (MDT)? | The applicable Section L paragraphs have been updated to reflect "Mountain Time" vs. MST. | |
| RFP Attachment L-3 does not directly tie to the numbering of the PWS paragraphs. In order to facilitate evaluation by ensuring a common approach to allocating PWS references to the Relevancy Matrix, will the Government identify which PWS paragraphs it considers relevant to each of the Relevancy Matrix columns? (Example – PWS paragraph might be considered applicable to OT&E or to Program Management.) | The titles that are BOLDED in the PWS 1.4 description of Services/specific requirements are the areas we are looking for the Matrix. There is not need to drill lower. | |
| Please verify that in the Attachment L-4 PPQ template, the numbering of the paragraphs in Section 5, Element V should be 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3. | PPQ numbering has been updated. | |
| Please verify that in the Attachment L-4 PPQ template, the numbering of the paragraph in Section 6, Element V should be 6.1. | PPQ numbering has been updated. | |
| The table of contents for the PWS is missing an entry for 1.5.14 Security. | PWS Table of Contents has been updated to reflect 1.5.14, Security. | |
| Please confirm that in the PWS, the paragraph on page 11 numbered as 1.4.4.5.2.5 should be 1.4.4.2.5. | PWS Para numbering has been updated. | |
| Please confirm that in the PWS, the paragraph on page 22 numbered as 1.4.6.1.7.4 should be 1.4.6.1.7.2.4. | PWS Para numbering has been updated. | |
| Please confirm the citations for the following items on page 31 in the Service Summary should be as follows | Service Summary Para references have been updated. | |
| Item PWS Paragraph | ||
| 3 1.4.6.1.1.1 | ||
| 4 1.4.6.1.1.5 | ||
| 5 1.4.6.1.1.21 | ||
| 7 1.4.6.1.2.11 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .