Attachment 21 Questions and Answers Set 2.pdf

1. Regarding solicitation FA441923R0001-SABER MACC, the RFP states: 3.2. The proposal shall be submitted via one (1) DoD SAFE Link. We will not accept e-mail, hard copy or faxed proposals. Please advise when we are to request a drop off code.

When you are ready to submit your completed proposal, please email logan.hamm.1@us.af.mil and lori.clinton@us.af.mil for a DOD SAFE Link.

2. RFP section 6.1.1.2.1 states that CPARS must be submitted via electronic submission to the designed POCs by the closing date. However, the RFP also states that CPARS will not count against proposal page count. Please clarify if the government intends for CPARs to be submitted separately from the proposal or within the proposal. If separately, please consider allowing all CPARs to be presented only within the proposal itself to eliminate redundancy. Per Section L, 6.1, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations are not included in the page limitation. Please feel free to submit separately and/or included in your proposal.

3. Will the government allow the use of completed or previously completed PPQs in lieu of CPARs? No, Attachment 15, Section M, 7.1 addresses Past Performance

4. Evaluation Factor 2, Subfactor 2 regards a Technical Approach to the Seed Project in Volume IV.

However, Section L does not give any requirements for this factor. Section L does not specify where this Subfactor is to be presented in Volume IV, nor in what format, page count, etc. Please specify requirements for the Seed Project’s Technical Proposal Section L para 7.2.2 has been revised to elaborate on what to submit for Factor 2, Subfactor 2 seed project technical proposal.

5. No deadline for submission of RFIs, nor anticipated response date, was provided. Please specify when questions are due and when we can expect answers to inquiries.

All questions are due by 22 February 2023 at 11:00 a.m. CST per Attachment 14, Section L, 10, they will be answered and posted back to Sam.gov by 24 February 2023.

6. Sam.Gov has two Amendments listed. Will the GOV issue SF 30’s for these amendments? Or, are Offerors only to acknowledge those amendments via Box 19 on the second page of the SF1442? Offerors only need to acknowledge the amendments in Box 19.

7. Please confirm the proposal submission time is 11:00 am Central Standard Time. Yes

8. Section L includes submission requirements for Factor 1, Price. However, it doesn’t appear to include submission requirements for Factor 2, Sub-Factor 2 – Seed Project Proposal. Section M provides evaluation criteria for Factor 2, Sub-Factor 2 – Seed Project, but uses general terms, like logical approach, complete approach, and sound understanding. It appears the GOV is wanting to see a narrative, similar to a Construction Approach or Technical Approach, but we can’t be certain with specific direction. Would the GOV please provide submission requirements for Factor 2, Sub-Factor 2 – Seed Project, to the detail all other technical factors were provided?

Section L para 7.2.2 has been revised to elaborate on what to submit for Factor 2, Subfactor 2 seed project technical proposal.

9. Factor 2, Subfactor 1 asks for resumes for the proposed Project Manager (later revised to Program Manager) and Quality Control Manager. However, Section M states evaluation of Factor 2, Subfactor 1 will take into account personnel required per MACC SOW, which includes a Program Manager. Please confirm that the only required resumes are for a Project Manager and Quality Control Manager. Yes, per Section L 5.1.2 “The Offeror shall provide information for the following disciplines: Program Manager and Quality Control Manager”

10. Volume II – Program Management is limited to 20 pages. Please confirm that the proposal cover, cover letter, table of contents, and tabs are excluded from the page count. Revised the table in Section L para 3.4.2.1 to state, “*Note: Proposal cover, cover letters, table of contents, and tabs are excluded from the page count.”

11. Volume III – Past Performance Information is limited to 20 pages, excluding the CPARS evaluations. Please confirm that the proposal cover, cover letter, table of contents, and tabs are excluded from the page count. Revised the table in Section L para 3.4.2.1 to state, “*Note:

Proposal cover, cover letters, table of contents, and tabs are excluded from the page count.”

12. Volume III – Past Performance Information asks for available CPARS to be emailed to Mrs.

Clinton and Mrs. Hamm prior to closing date and time. If no known CPARS are available, but PPQs are available, would the GOV like to have those emailed to the two POCs as well? No, Attachment 15, Section M, 7.1 addresses Past Performance

13. Paragraph 3.4.3 of Section L states, “Cost or Pricing Related Data. All cost and/or pricing data shall ONLY be addressed in Volume I.” However, Volume IV requires the Seed Project Price Proposal. Please confirm that Paragraph 3.4.3 in Section L is incorrect and that all pricing/cost data should be provided ONLY in Volume IV. Revised Section L para 3.4.3 to state “Cost or Pricing Related Data. All cost and/or pricing data shall ONLY be addressed in Volume IV.

14. Volume I, paragraph 4.1.6 of Section L asks Offerors to “Complete representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM).” Is it the GOV’s intent for Offeror’s to include a printed representations and certifications from SAM to demonstrate completion or just a statement from Offeror’s acknowledging that all representations and certifications have been completed in SAM? The Government shall verify the Offeror’s representations via SAM.gov

15. Section M, Volume III Past Performance, states that a Very Relevant past performance volume is where, “all projects must be performed in support of a Department of Defense (DoD) agency and independently corroborated by the Government evaluation Team through CPARS and the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project. The Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project must still be a DoD employee and have an active DoD email address.” With reassignment common among DoD agencies and departments, requiring the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project to still be a DoD employee and have an active DoD email address in order to achieve a “Very Relevant” rating is very restrictive and places a rating evaluation on a factor that the Contractor/Offeror has no control over. Please confirm that the project itself will be the sole component being evaluate and not include whether the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project is an active DoD employee with an active DoD email address. e submitted projects would have been performed/executed/active all at the same time?

Changed 7.1.2.1. “Very Relevant” and “Relevant” adjectival rating descriptions to: “….in support of a Department of Defense (DoD) agency and independently corroborated by the Government evaluation team through CPARS (if available) or the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project.”

16. Volume III, Past Performance, Section M, within the Adjectival Rating table, it references, “…demonstrates 5 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $700K.” Is it the GOV’s desire that the five submitted projects would have been performed/executed/active all at the same time? Per Section M 7.1.2.1. The 5 projects must have simultaneous (overlapping) performance

17. Volume III, Past Performance, Section M, within the Adjectival Rating table, it references, “… demonstrates 5 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $700K.” Is it the GOV’s desire that the five submitted projects total $700K or each of the five (5) submitted projects has a project value of a minimum of $700K? Per Section M 7.1.2.1., with costs totaling a minimum of $700K.