SNIM Draft RFP 2 Q A.xls
XLS spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SNIM RFP Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4600-08-R-0025
About this file
Responses to SNIM Draft RFP 2 Inquiries uploaded.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SNIM Q A.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Amendment 2 - SNIM RFP SF30.doc | DOC document | |
| SNIM Q A.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| SNIM Q A.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Amendment 1 - SNIM RFP SF30.doc | DOC document | |
| SNIM Q A.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| FA4600-08-R-0025 SNIM 29Apr09.doc | DOC document | |
| SPECIAL NOTICE DACS IATAC MSIAC.doc | DOC document | |
| SNIM Draft RFP 2.doc | DOC document | |
| SNIM Q A Posted.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| SNIM synopsis.doc | DOC document | |
| Special Notice to Industry 3Dec08.doc | DOC document | |
| Ex A CDRL DD 1423.doc | DOC document | |
| J-4 EEOC Clearance Request Information.doc | DOC document | |
| J-3 Ins Cert Final.doc | DOC document | |
| J-1 Draft SNIM IDIQ Master DD 254 w-upd2.pdf | ||
| J-2 SNIM Pricing Model.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| FA4600-08-R-0025 SNIM Draft v1.1.doc | DOC document |
Show all 18
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
Draft RFP 2
| Disclaimer: If there is a conflict between the answer posted here and the formal RFP, the formal RFP takes precedence. | ||
| Questions | Answers | |
| General Questions | ||
| Contract type for all TAT’s is stated as being either CPFF or FFP. T&M’s (Time and Materials) are specifically excluded from TAT’s. It is unclear whether the Government intends to pass this requirement down from Prime MAC holders to its various subcontractors. Given the nature of the TAT subject matter areas, the Prime MAC holders will most likely need to engage small businesses or individual consultants for subject matter expertise. As these partners my not be CAS compliant, a CPFF subcontract would be inappropriate. Many of these types of services also do not fit with the FFP methodology. Will the government specifically allow for T&M subcontracting in the resultant MAC awards? | The Government will not state at the IDIQ level that it will allow nor disallow a specific subcontract type since this could depend on varing factors and need to be made on a case by case basis at the individual TAT level. | |
| Will Subscription Accounts for multiple training sessions or purchase of bulk quantities of products be available in the new contract? | Subscription accounts will not be available under SNIM. All requirements will be awarded through task orders. | |
| Section B | ||
| RFP Page 2, CLIN 0001 - CLIN 0001 specifically covers the reports for Section 1.5.2.3, 1.5.2.4, and 1.5.2.5. Are the activities in Section 1.5.2.2 and 1.5.2.6 required to be bid into each TAT? | Yes, these requirements/costs will be at the individual TAT level. | |
| PWS | ||
| Reference Section 1.3.1.2 | ||
| Which international agreements for military or related operations are there in place? Are there any international agreements for military or related operations in the works? If so, with which nations? | If these become applicable they will be specified in the individual TAT requirement. | |
| Reference Section 1.4.4.2 | ||
| Please describe where data may be from "existing sources?" Please provide those respective platforms, architectures and inner-connected components. | Specific details such as the "data of new or existing sources", which could vary requirement to requirement will be identified in the individual TAT. | |
| RFP, Page 14, Section 1.4.4. Knowledge Management - Are these activities funded through the CPFF CLINS 002 or 004? There is insufficient detail to provide a FFP price as the number of trips, locations, number of SOARS, etc. have not been specified. Additionally, is the plan to have a Net Billing process for training and product development as is utilized on the current IAC contracts? | PWS section 1.4.4. provides the areas of Knowledge Management that may be included in an individual TAT requirement. The CO will determine at the time of the TAT competition, depending on the individual requirement, which CLIN the TAT order will be issued against. No Net Billing process will be used for the SNIM IDIQ contracts. | |
| RFP, Page 14, Section 1.5 Program Management - Are these activities to be bid as part of CLIN 0001 Management Reporting or under each individual TAT under CLINS 0002 through 0005? | As specified in the CLIN x001 description the proposed price shall be for the Management Reporting requirements of Sections 1.5.2.3, 1.5.2.4, 1.5.2.5 of the SNIM PWS. All other costs will be proposed per TAT requirement. | |
| Reference Section 1.6.1 | ||
| Are there any current SNIM published standards or standards that are being re-written in regards to this initiative not listed in the PWS? Currently stated are http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives <http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives> and http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html> which do not address most foreign solution platforms. For instance governance of records in the United States for DoD policy is through the use of the DoD 5015.2 http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/recmgt/ <http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/recmgt/> . | Any standards and/or regulations not identified in the SNIM IDIQ PWS will be specified in the individual TAT requirement. | |
| The draft RFP Section H.3 Ordering Process, subparagraph e. Cost/Price for travel and materials, sub 1. Travel Cost reimbursable specifies " When Government quarters are available the contractor employees shall use them." | ||
| In the past this has posed a significant cost issue when the Government Quarters are no longer available when the contract employee arrives at the Travel location. As a result the Contractor employee must use Commercial facilities at rates that are not within the GSA specified Per Diem for the location. Will the Contracting Office provide any protection for reservations made at Government quarters? Will the Contracting office provide contractual adjudication for non-GSA Per Diem hotels when Government quarters were reserved and then the reservation was not honored? | The contractor shall follow the guidenance and requlation specified in FAR 31.205-46 and the Joint Travel Regulations. The subject sentence regarding "government quarters" will be removed from RFP paragraph H.3. | |
| Reference H.4 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This is listed as “Under construction.” Will the OCI issue be finalized before the RFP release? | The H.4, OCI, clause will be issued when the formal RFP is released. | |
| Will REQUIRED INSURANCE guidelines be included in Section H of the Final RFP to assist offerors in completing J-3: Notification of Compliance with Contract Insurance Requirements? | The "Notification of Compliance with Contract Insurance Requirements" attachment will be removed from the SNIM RFP. | |
| Section I | ||
| Sould FAR 52.227-11, Patent Right – Ownership by the Contractor be included in the RFP? Research and development contracts typically contain this clause. | DFARS clause 252.227-7038, Patent Rights—Ownership by the Contractor (Large Business), is included instead of FAR 52.227-11, per DFARS 227.303. | |
| Would the Government consider removal of FAR 52.215-17, Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money and Replace with FAR 52.215-16 to allow contractors to propose this item where appropriate under SNIM IDIQ TAT proposals? | FAR 52.215-16 is included in the RFP, Section L. FAR 52.215-17 will be removed from the solicitation but may be included in the resultant contract if the prospective contractor does not propose facilities capital cost of money in its offer. | |
| Would the Government consider removal of FAR 52.227-3, Patent Indemnity, since this will be a research and development contract and this clause is typically included in contracts that involve the delivery of commercial items? | FAR clause 52.227-3, Patent Indemnity, is included since a commercial item may be an incidental component of TAT performance or generated STI. | |
| Section L | ||
| Reference L2.0, PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS. Please provide clarification on response date. The RFP states that the Phase I proposals are due 30 days after RFP release and that Phase II proposals are due 60 days after RFP release. This infers that offerors will have 30 days to write the Phase II proposal because the Sample TATs won’t be released until 30 days after the RFP release date. Is that correct? | Yes, that is correct. | |
| Section L2.0 limits responses to Subfactor 1 – Management & Technical Capability to 25 pages. In order to allow offerors to provide complete responses, will the Government increase the page limits for Subfactor 1 to 35 pages? | No. | |
| Reference Section L2.1.1 Page Limitations. Would the Government consider adding “cover letter” to the list of items not counted in the maximum page limits? | The Government considers a "cover letter" and "cover page" to be synonymous, in which this would not be counted per instruction in L2.1.1. | |
| Section L3.1 at the bottom of RFP page 76 - Offerors are asked to provide information including basis of selection for “each planned subcontract”. Does this apply to only the subcontractors proposed on the Sample TAT’s or does this apply to the entire proposed team for the IDIQ contract? |
Please clarify “planned subcontract”. It would seem that “planned subcontract” is only relevant to the Sample Tasks since a reference to subcontractor involvement in the mission capability section is purely speculative. There are two separate subcontracting/teaming arrangement requirements for Mission Capability and TAT responses. Section L3.1 applies to the information to be provided as part of the Mission Capability volume. L7.4.2.c provides instruction on the information to be include for subcontracts within the Sample TATs proposal volume.
This is intended to include any subcontractor/teaming partner the Prime Offeror may be including as part of it Mission Capability proposal. This will be changed to read, "For each planned subcontractor/teaming partner..."
Reference L3.1 GENERAL. The last paragraph in L3.1 states “At a minimum, the Mission Capability proposal shall consist of the following sections Table of Contents Executive Summary Management and Technical Capability – Subfactor 1 Small Business Participation (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) – Subfactor 2 Sample Technical Area Tasks (excludes price) – Subfactor 3
| The above guidance is inconsistent with L2.0 where Sample Area Tasks are excluded from Phase I. Shouldn’t the instruction be changed to display Phase I sections as above but excluding Sample Area Tasks? Is there guidance for the Phase II sections? | Correct, the reference to Sample TATs will be removed from L3.1. | |
| If an organizational chart is included in the Mission Capability Subfactor 1, is it included in the 25 pages? The Executive Summary also asks for an organizational chart and this section is unscored. | Section L3.2 specifies that the Offeror's organizational chart is to be included as part of the Executive Summary with the Mission Capability volume. The table in L2.0 specifies a 5 page limit for the Executive Summary. If an organizational chart is also included in the proposal information for Subfactor 1 it will be counted. | |
| Is it acceptable to include the organization chart in the Executive Summary and refer to it from Subfactor 1 and still be evaluated? | Yes. | |
| For Volume I, subfactor 1, the general instructions in section L3.3 request demonstrating technical ability in the SNIM mission areas identified in section M. However, the more specific instructions (L3.3.1 through L3.3.4) focus on management-related topics only. Section M3.1.1 for subfactor 1 adds specific PWS capability requirements for each technical area. Sections L and M seem inconsistent in their requirements. Does the government desire a discussion of technical capabilities in Volume 1? | Yes, the Government will evaluate the offeror's capability to meet the SNIM requirements identified in M3.1.1. Applicable instruction will be added to L3.3. | |
| If the answer to the question above is yes, where a technical capabilities discussion as outlined in section M3.1.1 is desired in Volume 1, does the government still intend for the technical and management discussion to be limited to 25 pages? | Yes. | |
| Reference L3.4 SUBTACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION. The RFP requests the offeror to provide a small business subcontracting plan demonstrating how it will achieve small business goals of 15% for Base Period, 20% for Options 1&2, and 25% for Options 3&4 and a distribution of VOSB 3%, SDVOSB 3%, SDB 5%, WOSB 5% and HubZone 3%. Since the Phase 1 submittal will not include cost other than Program Management functions related to STI shouldn’t the Small Business Plan be a Phase 2 submittal so that the Small Business Plan will reflect the estimated proposal costs from the sample tasks?” | The subcontracting plan will remain a part of the Phase 1 proposal. The Government realizes that Offerors cannot estimate the total dollars that may be awarded them over the life of a multiple award IDIQ contract. Thus, dollar amounts are not expected in the subcontracting plan. Rather the subcontracting plan shall define the Offeror's approach (e.g. the Offeror’s known small business teaming partners, technical roles of performance, focus areas and/or types of work anticipated to be subcontracted to small business, etc.) that will be utilized in meeting the small business participation goals. | |
| Section L4.1 indicates that the government will use “various sources, which may not be limited to Past Performance Information Documents submitted, CPARs, questionnaires, and interviews” to assess Past Performance. If a contract does not have CPARs or other alternate assessment documentation as defined in Section L.4.2.6 (“e.g., an Award Fee notification letter, a subcontractor’s prime Contractor performance evaluation”), would Attachment J-6, Past Performance Questionnaire, be a sufficient form of alternative assessment documentation? | Attachment J-6 is the questionnaire being referenced in L4.1. | |
| Reference L4.2 CONTENT OF PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME. The requirement for 10 past performances references appears excessive. Would the government be amendable to making the requirement five references? | The offeror is not required to submitt 10 past performance references. This is the maximum number of references that can be submitted. | |
| Section L4.2.4 states “Past performance on IDIQ type contracts should be submitted at the delivery/task order level, unless performance is only assessed for the IDIQ contract as a whole. The Offeror shall explain that performance on individual orders is not assessed and provide the using activity’s single point of contact that can verify the Offeror’s performance”. Question - If an ID/IQ contract is submitted for past performance assessment on the contract as a whole in support of the offeror’s management capabilities, can an individual delivery order under that contract also be submitted to demonstrate technical capability? | If the contract is assessed at the IDIQ level as a whole it would likely cover all management and technical aspects the offeror performed in the orders under it. | |
| There appears to be an inconsistency in the descriptions of the component capabilities that make up each of the four technical areas across different portions of the RFP and the Past Performance questionnaire. For example, |
• the description in 1.4.3.8 does not match the MS-8 description in the Past Performance Questionnaire – the MS-8 description appears to address only improvement based on combat exercises or actual combat, while 1.4.3.8 does not restrict the improvement;
• 1.4.3.9 restricts the purpose of the tools discussed while MS-9 does not;
• for the Software Data & Analysis technical area, Section 1.4.2 enumerates 8 areas of expertise, and the Past Performance questionnaire mirrors that organization. However in Section M3.2.4.1 Relevancy Criteria there are 9 areas of expertise for SDA - this section splits the capability description in SD-2 and in 1.4.2.2 into two separate capabilities.
| Question – Would the Government consider using the same wording to describe the technical capabilities in all RFP sections and in the Past Performance questionnaire in order to be consistent throughout the RFP? | The Government will take this into consideration. | |
| Section M | ||
| Reference M3.1 FACTOR 1 – MISSION CAPABILITY. The PWS references listed for evaluation are a subset of PWS 1.4 and 1.5. Please confirm that this is intentional. | Yes. |
&CPosted Draft RFP&R&P of &N
Sheet1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .