L and M Questions for FA4452-11-R-0013 AMC AAS.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AMC Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS)
- Solicitation number
- FA4452-11-R-0013
About this file
Responses to questions submitted related to Draft Sections L and M.
View the file
Other files
Show all 32
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
FA4452-11-R-0013
DRAFT SECTIONS L&M COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
| RFP Section |
| Paragraph(S) |
| Question |
| Response |
| 1 |
| L&M |
| We have looked at the requirement, especially the Labor Categories required in the PWS, and l would like to suggest that perhaps NAICS 541519, Other Computer Related Services ($25 million) be considered. The following Labor Categories would seem to support the use of 541519 since they involve computer hardware and software, the development of an evaluation of software, the use and development of databases. |
| Please note this is not a contract for IT Services. The chosen NAICS 541611 will not be changed. |
| 2 |
| L&M |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 4.2.3, Contractor’s Past Performance Information Documents, Pages 21 and 22. |
| In regards to the statement - “A valid Past Performance Information Document is required on the Prime Offeror, joint venture, subcontractors, teaming partners and/or key personnel for which significant past performance has been submitted.” Can the government please clarify “significant past performance”, and is a Past Performance Information Document required from every subcontractor on a team, or is it permissible for a subcontractor to be part of a prime’s team without submitting a Past Performance Information Document? |
| The word “significant” means past performance that is noteworthy. We will remove this word so that sentence states “A valid Past Performance Information Document is required on the Prime Offeror, joint venture, subcontractors, teaming partners and/or key personnel for which past performance has been submitted. It is possible to be a subcontractor on a team without submitting a PPID, though if you do submit Past Performance questionnaires for a subcontractor, they must also submit a PPID. |
| 3 |
| L&M |
| RFP Section M, Paragraph 3.2.3 Relevancy, Page 30 -Relevancy Table |
| Is it the intention of the Government to apply the relevancy criteria/definition listed in the referenced table, to each individual Past Performance Information Document (PPID)? For example, to be considered highly relevant a PPID must show evidence of supporting seven (7) or more of the PWS areas listed. |
| Please note the requirement for seven or more areas listed is an aggregate of all past performance submitted. |
| 4 |
| L&M |
As a prime contractor pursuing AMCAAS, we have recently determined that we are ineligible to bid based on our $7.71M revenue average against the AMCAAS $7M NAICS 541611. We have noted that the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 51 issued 16 Mar (attached) states a proposed revised size standard for NAICS 541611 of $14M. First, are we ineligible to bid on AMCAAS at this time given our size? Second, does the Government anticipate accepting this proposed NAICS change prior to proposal submission?
The Government will utilize the most current authorized size standards. To be considered for award, you must adhere to these standards.
| 5 |
| L&M |
Small Company (S) is planning to prime the AMC opportunity using a large company (L) as a team member. Some of the past performance for company S at another command was done as a subcontractor to company L. We request some guidance on how to address past performance in this situation:
Can the activities of both company S and L be covered in a single past performance reference? Or would this require two separate write ups?
· If only the small company S performance is covered, should the large company L fill out the questionnaire as the prime of the work referenced? Or should a government POC be used?
Each PPID and related Past Performance Questionnaire must be stand independently.
Government POC’s are preferred.
| 6 |
| L&M |
Q19 Answer: “All offerors will need to hold a Secret Facility Clearance at time of proposal.”
Q28 Answer: “Both the Prime and its subcontractors are required to hold a secret facility clearance at time of award.”
Question: The answers to Q&A #s 19 and 28 seem to contradict one another. Will it be sufficient for a company to show a clear path and ability to obtain a facility clearance prior to award of classified task orders?
A secret facility clearance is required at time of award of MAC IDIQ.
Q19’s Answer is hereby changed to state ““All offerors will need to hold a Secret Facility Clearance at time of base contract award.”
| 7 |
| L&M |
| Paragraph L4.2.3 |
| What does the Government consider performance assessment, e.g. CPAR? |
Rationale: It is not clear what the Government considers performance assessment. If the Government's definition of "performance assessment" is a formal product such as a CPAR or information that can be retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), this needs to be clarified as it will influence the type and level of past performance citations competitors submit.
CPAR is the standard form of Government assessment, though PPIRS will be utilized as well is considered a viable form of assessment.
| Will the Government accept requests for sponsorship related to Facility Clearance requirements? |
| A request for facility clearance was made. Please note that the contracting office will not be issuing facility clearances. |
| 9 |
| L&M |
| RFP Paragraph L4.2.3 |
| "Past Performance on IDIQ contracts should be submitted at the delivery/task order level, unless performance is only assessed for the IDIQ contract as a whole." |
What does the Government consider performance assessment, e.g. CPAR?
See response #7.
| 10 |
| L&M |
| RFP Paragraph M3.2.3, 2d para |
| "This takes into consideration joint ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposing partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort....when the partners' past performance is viewed in the aggregate, the past performance information may more accurately reflect a higher rating." |
While not directly related, this comes close to addressing our concern. How does the Government view two teaming partners, supporting different Task Orders, under the same IDIQ?
See Response #5
| 11 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section H-7 Contractor Personnel Administration, paragraph b, last sentence |
| Please define the criteria for determining whether the Government would expend additional effort to orient new personnel? |
| This statement has been deleted from related Clause. |
| 12 |
| L&M |
| H-8 Resume Review – |
| When and where are “key” personnel identified (i.e. in the TO RFP). Are these key resumes included in the task order proposal? |
| The key personnel related to Task Orders. This statement has been moved to H-21 (Ordering) to prevent confusion. |
| 13 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section H-21 Ordering - |
| Past Performance is required as part of the task order proposals and will be validated for accuracy of recency and relevancy but will not be evaluated. How does validation differ from an evaluation process? |
| This statement has been removed from referenced clause. |
| 14 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section H-29 Subcontractor/Cross Teaming – |
| Cross teaming is allowed prior to contract award but the Government may prohibit cross teaming after award. How will this be implemented? |
| Per H-21 (a) Any time a prime desires to add a subcontractor, the prime contractor shall provide an updated list to the CO for review and if adding a subcontractor, approval |
| 15 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section L.1.3. Proposal Clarity – |
| In the instructions, the contractor is required to show convincing rationale on how they plan to meet the Government requirements. What volume should this information be included since there is no Technical Volume? |
| The requested information shall be submitted in Volume III. |
| 16 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section L.1.3 Proposal Clarity - |
| The organizational table (L.2.1) of the volumes does not show a cross-referencing matrix in any of the volumes. Since there is no technical or management volume to show how the contractor plans to meet the PWS requirements, in which volume should we include this matrix? |
| The requested information shall be submitted in Volume III. |
| 17 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section L, L.2.2.1, PAGE LIMITATIONS |
| Last sentence. This sentence states “resumes” will not be counted in the maximum page limits. Since the draft solicitation documents state a technical volume is not required as part of the proposal, which volume, Past Performance Volume or Pricing Volume should this be in? |
The word “resumes” has been removed from subject paragraph.
| 18 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section L-4.2.7 Organizational Structure Change History – |
| Is this change history required on all team partners? |
Change history is required for all team partners.
| 19 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section L4.2.7 Organization– |
| How far back does the Government want the history to go? |
| The organization structure and change history should detail the last three years. |
| 20 |
| L&M |
| Ref. Section M3.2.3 Relevancy – |
| If the acquisition strategy is still to make this a Small Business Set Aside, NAISC 541611, $7M size standard, would you consider lowering the Highly Relevant Criteria, number of functional areas requirement? It is very difficult for a business this size to have a single contract with 7 functional areas covered, even though we may have experience in all 10 functional areas. |
| See Response #3 |
| Overall |
| Will the Government consider removing requirement possession of Facility Clearance prior to base contract award as is restrictive to small business? |
| Market research performed indicates that there will be adequate competition from small businesses with facility clearance required for award. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .