WICS II RFP Questions 21 May 2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA255020R0004
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 72 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| Response to Questions RFP FA255020R0004 20 May 2020 | ||||
| RFP Reference | Page Number | Paragraph # | Question | ANSWER |
| Regarding the past performance submission instructions: | Are we allowed to submit 3 Present/Past Performance Information Submittals for each of the 9 areas, for a max of 27, as long as they meet the other criteria you specified? Atch 6 - Section L: 3.8.1 Organization / Number of Copies / Page Limits: Table L-1- Proposal organization Table states the following for Volume II: No more than 3 Present/Past Performance Information Submittals per focus area (includes Prime and Subcontractors). Atch 6 - Section L: 4.2.3.3 Tab 3: Relevant Contracts. Submit information IAW the instructions for the PPI tool, Attachment L-3, for up to three recent citations per focus area that is identified in Attachment L-7. Atch L-7 has these areas listed: |
1. Military Satellite Communications (MILSATCOM) 2. Global Broadcast Service Operations Center (GBSOC) 3. Space Command Digital Integrated Network (SDIN) 4. Mission Impact Reporting (MIR) 5. Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) 6. Global Command and Control System (GCCS) 7. Configuration Management (CM) 8. Cybersecurity 9. Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)
| yes. 3 submittals per specific area are acceptable. | |||||
| 4.1.6 Tab 5: Subfactor 3 – Scenarios. | 7 of 13 | RFP states: Offeror’s shall provide an email address for acceptance of the scenarios on behalf of the company. Would the government clarify where or how they would like offerors to identify the email address for acceptance of the scenarios (i.e. via direct email to the CO, or at a specific location within our proposal response)? | Within Volume 1, Tab 5 should provide the email address for acceptance of the scenarios on behalf of the company | ||
| Atch 6 RFP Section L – Instructions to Offerors | 5 of 13 | RFP states: Use Times New Roman, with a font no smaller than 11-point with normal proportional spacing. Text embedded in graphics and tables can vary from the font style and size requirement but must be readable to the reviewer. Will the Government allow headers and footers to also vary from the font size requirement? | yes | ||
| Section L 4.4.6 Tab 6 | RFP States: Completed Section K - Representations and Certifications - Provide a signed copy of the representations and certifications within Section K of this proposal. | ||||
| Per Section J Attachment 5, there are only two Section K Representations and Certifications. Are these the only requirements or does the Government require the offeror to complete a full set of Representations and Certifications if using the SBA new rule for 5-year average to certify size based on the NAICS Code? | Though the DFARS provisions and certifications were not identified as Section K in Atch 5, they are also applicable. It is anticipated that offerors will have provided the annual certifications in SAM IAW DFARS 252.204-7007. Reps and Certs will be obtained additionally from Beta.SAM | ||||
| Table L-1, | |||||
| L.4.2.3.2 | 3 and 8 of 13 | Table L-1 - This page limitation excludes the Executive Summary and copies of relevant PWS’s referenced. |
L.4.2.3.2 - The proposal shall provide a completed relevancy matrix for the offeror including each proposed teaming partner (see format at Attachment L-7) for areas the team is proposed to work. Do not identify past performance for proposed team members in areas they are not proposed to perform. The tab has no page limitation. Each offeror (including affiliates, subcontractors, teammates and/or joint venture partners), will be assessed for relevancy as outlined in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.3.
Table L-1 ties the requested copies of relevant/highlighted PWSs to the Technical Proposal volume. The Relevancy Matrix (Attachment L-7) is tied to the Past Performance volume. Would the government please clarify/confirm that the PWS excerpts submitted with the Technical Proposal volume should align to the contracts submitted as part of the Technical Experience write ups?
Considering offerors will cite a significant number of contracts to support relevancy across the functional areas in Attachment L-7 Relevancy Matrix, is the government also requesting PWS excerpts be included as part of the Past Performance volume in addition to those provided as part of the Technical Experience volume? If so, will the government amend the RFP to reflect the additional requirement? PWS excerpts as part of Technical Experience should align to the Technical Experience areas.
Past Performance does not require PWS excerpts. No amendment to the RFP is needed.
| L 4.4.10 Tab 10: Professional Employee Compensation Plan | |||
| L 4.4.10.1 | 12 of 13 | ultiplied | Attachment L-6 is used to provide salaries and associated data. Additionally Primes and subcontractors should also submit a document that outlines the total compensation plan the company uses for fringe benefits as well as support as identified in FAR 52.222-46. |
| 4.3.1.5 Government Approved Travel, Equipment, Supplies, and Incidentals CLIN |
4.3.1.7 Ceiling G&A Rates
10 of 13 RFP States: 4.3.1.5 - The established baseline amounts include allowances for reimbursement of applicable contractor burdens.
4.3.1.7. This Rate Ceiling will be applied to the estimated amounts and the total will be included in the Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) of the proposal
4.3.1.5 assumes that the estimated amounts already include any applicable G&A. However, 4.3.1.7 states the rate ceiling proposed will be applied to the estimated amounts and the total will be included in the TEP of the proposal.
Would the government clarify if offerors are to add their G&A to the estimated amounts for materials and travel? If so, where in the Attachment L-1 should the G&A be added?
For the sake of simplicity in calculating the TEP, the ceiling G&A Rate will be multiplied by the ceiling ODC rate then added to the total of the FFP CLINs.
Attachment L-1 and Section L are amended to clarify.
Section L 2.0 General Instructions 1 of 13 The term “offeror” includes affiliates, subcontractors, teammates and/or joint venture partners.
The term “offeror” is throughout the entire Section L.
Are all proposed subcontractors, regardless of subcontract value, required to submit all required information as required of the Prime to include Attachment L-1 Cost & Pricing Summary and L-6?
| No. Subcontractors are not required to submit pricing Atch L-1. Subcontractors are required to submit L-6 | ||||
| SF 33 | Is there an applicable DPAS rating for this contract? | This is not a Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) rated contract IAW FAR 11.6 | ||
| PWS 11.2.1 | 59 | RFP states: “CDRL A206-Updates to Mission Systems supporting updates to mission systems for government approval.” | ||
| This statement is unclear. Please define the requirement. | 11.2.1 of the PWS is amended. | |||
| PWS 11.4 | 59 | CDRLA205 Meeting Minutes. | ||
| The CDRL List A205 (Contract Line Item No. X010) states the Authority is DI-ADMN-81505. Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes. References in CDRL Block 16 to Para 10 would be accurate. The reference to Para 3C would be more appropriate to CDRL DI-ADMN-81250B Conference Minutes. Note: The companion CDRL DI-ADMN-81249B Conference Agenda was used for CDRL A204. | CDRL A205 is amended. | |||
| RFP; PWS; 10.11.1.16.2; Att 6, Sec L; Att 5; RFP Sec H | 4-11; 52; 10; 85 | CLIN X009 SDIN Tech Refresh |
This Cost Reimbursable CLIN will be used for equipment/ material/software/warranty purchases, labor hours … Paragraph 4.3.1.6 SDIN Technical Refresh Cost Reimbursable CLIN: “No profit is allowed for these costs.”
Five FAR clauses specify no Profit on CR items H-001 the contractor shall not be reimbursed for any G&A indirect costs applicable to ODC CLINs that result from rates computed in excess of the rates shown below.
Regarding the SDIN Tech refresh, PWS 10.11.1.16.2 states, “This work will be incrementally funded under a separate Cost Reimbursable Technical Refresh CLIN as funds are available. This CLIN will be used for equipment/material/software/warranty purchases, labor hours ` travel, installation, and shipment to achieve an integrated turnkey SDIN operational system.”
However, section paragraph 4.3.1.6 of Section L, discussing the Cost Reimbursable CLIN for the SDIN technical refresh, states that “No profit is allowed for these costs”.
As the Cost Reimbursable CLIN will not support inclusion of labor, will the Government provide a companion labor CLIN associated with the SDIN Tech Refresh? Or does the government request all labor associated with supporting the SDIN function, including the technical refresh, be priced as part of the FFP SDIN labor CLIN?
Labor Hours incidental to the ODC installations will be reimbursed. The labor hours of the FFP labor force in support of the ODC equipment installations are not a reimbursable cost.
A separate labor CLIN for ODC installation is not required .
| Atch L-1 Cost and Pricing Summary 15 May 20 | Please clarify whether pre- through post-installation engineering and administrative labor (engineering solution refresh, lab testing, development of installation plans, material tracking, engineering support during installation, and as-built drawings) are intended to be included in CLIN X009 to achieve an integrated turnkey SDIN operational system. | Yes. Reference the SDIN Juniper EOL Engineering Study posted 14 Jan 2020 on beta.SAM. | |
| PWS 10.1.2 and 14.1 | 46 and 66 | PWS States: 10.1.2 Normal duty hours for SDIN operations support is 24/7. Be on console 24/7 unless directed to evacuate or to relocate to the COOP site. |
14.1 Performance Objective SS-1 – provide 100% task coverage for all positions, as defined in the PWS.
For SDIN, please clarify whether a Two Person Integrity policy applies to all shifts, in addition to the 100% coverage requirement.
| PWS 10.1.2 is revised for clarity. | |||
| PWS 10.11.1.16.2 | 53 | Table 10-2 Site Networks | |
| Should the RED and BLACK Out-of-Band (OOB) networks and their locations be listed in this table? | The SDIN OOB network is the same equipment/locations as the Red & Black SDIN network. The OOB network uses DISA circuits that are not part of the SDIN mission data transport bandwidth that interconnect the SDIN equipment to the SDIN NMC for management purposes. This is for redundancy when In-Band management capability is down. PWS Table 10-1 is revised |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .