Industry Questions with Government Responses.docx
DOCX document 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Air Force Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-12-R-0006
About this file
Industry Questions with Government Responses
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Air Force Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Support has more files on GovTribe.
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
Government Answers to Industry Questions – 13 April 2012
| # |
| Reference |
| Question |
| Response |
| 1 |
| ID/IQ PWS Section 2.5.3.1.3 |
| The PWS states that the Government would like a Manager for each assertion package/work stream. In Task Orders 0002 and 0003 there are several assertion packages in sustainment. Does the Government intend for the vendor to propose a Manager for each package in sustainment or may we propose a different approach for sustainment? |
| See changes to ID/IQ PWS paragraph 2.5.3.1.3. |
| 2 |
| Pre-Proposal Conference Slides |
| According to the Pre-Proposal Conference slides, the cutoff date for questions is 20 April 2012. Provided that proposal submissions are due 24 April 2012, would the Government consider shortening the window for questions to allow all offerors the chance to incorporate any changes sooner in the process? |
| The date has been changed to 18 April 2012. |
| 3 |
| Pre-Proposal Conference Discussion |
| Based on the discussion at Industry Day, will the Government change the requirement for TS/SCI to TS with the ability to be read on to an SCI position? Will the Government be responsible for all assignment of SCI billets and coordination as required? |
| A TS Facility Clearance is required, with personnel involved in Special Programs (whether as part of Task Order 0002 or from a managerial perspective in Task Order 0001) required to possess a TS/SCI clearance. Reference ID/IQ PWS Table 5 for available workspace related to Task Order 0002. |
| 4 |
| Task Order 0001 |
| Under Task Order 0001 there is a general requirement to provide “Program management capability for ID/IQ to ensure contractor success in achieving full audit readiness by 30 Sep 17.” Currently there are tasks assigned to the PMO that will definitely not continue until Sep 17. Will a staffing plan be considered compliant by bidding what is required to support the PWS (in support of Task Orders 0002 and 0003) and not bidding personnel that will support future unknown Task Orders? |
| Task Order 0001 is for program management of the overall effort not just Task Orders 0002 & 0003. If there is future work that exceeds the requirements of Task Order 0001 or is beyond the Contractor’s original understanding, another task order may be solicited and awarded. Communication between the Contractor and Government is essential. |
| 5 |
| Answers to questions 3 April 2012 |
| The Government’s Answers to Industry Questions – 3 April 2012, Question #6, indicates that the PPI will be evaluated based on the four Past Performance Relevancy elements… |
· Financial statement audit and audit readiness support within the DoD
· Application of Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual procedures for a Federal agency
· Experience with FIAR Guidance resolving complex audit issues and developing assertion packages
· Experience managing multiple tasks and programs at multiple locations simultaneously … as well as the three Technical Sub-factors:
· Management/Staffing Plan
· OCI Plan
· Transition Plan.
Will the Government please confirm that the offeror should address the latter (the three Technical Sub-factors) in the PPIs? It was our interpretation (based on RFP Section 6-8.3 Relevant Contracts) that the offeror was to address the “AF FIAR Support capabilities IAW PWS requirements” (IDIQ: Section A Program Management, Section B Environmental, Safety, Health and Security, and Section C Quality Control), not the three Technical Sub-factors. We recommend addressing the three IDIQ PWS areas rather than the three Technical Sub-factors. Addressing the three Technical Sub-factors (especially OCI and Transition Plans may not be relevant to all Government contracts) and therefore would not provide the Government any benefit in its evaluation. Please clarify whether the Government would like PPI references to address IDIQ PWS areas or Technical Sub-factors.
RFP paragraph 6-8.3 talks to relevancy as it relates to, “the full range of AF FIAR Support capabilities IAW PWS requirements” while Section 6, Attachment 1, PPI, Section B requests that offerors, “Explain how past performance experience on this reference is relevant for each subfactor under the Technical Factor in Section 7, including any unique attributes that demonstrate relevancy in this effort.” Offerors should provide what is deemed necessary to demonstrate past performance relevant to this effort, as applicable to the reference.
| # |
| Reference |
| Question |
| Response |
| 6 |
| TO 0001 PWS, Section 2.11.1 |
| In the PWS for Task Order 0001, Section 2.11.1, the Government includes “data mining, document retrieval, and document scanning/uploading” under the MAJCOM liaison task. There is no specificity as to what is required for any of these areas. How many lines of accounting? How many documents will we be required to retrieve? How many documents are required to be scanned (by day, by month, by year)? How often will this activity occur? If the Government cannot provide these, will you consider moving “data mining” to its own subsequent Task Order after the information is available? This would allow the vendor to price the task accurately. Given a FFP bid, not providing these numbers would place a high amount of risk on a potential vendor. |
| See changes in Task Order 0001 paragraph 2.11.1. |
| 7 |
| ID/IQ PWS, Section 2.5.3, Key Personnel |
| Will the Government consider allowing the vendor to determine how best to provide: executive leadership, oversee the project, provide strategic support and final authority on the work provided? The current approach limits the contractors ability to do the following: |
· Protect our firm (final authority-obligation of company)
· Provide the most qualified “team” of personnel
· Determine the most appropriate leader for a program this large
· Ensure all necessary skill sets to deliver the work are included.
Limiting the contractor to the three bulleted requirements listed in Section 2.5.3.1.1 does not allow us to accomplish the four items above.
Upon further consideration, see changes to ID/IQ PWS paragraph 2.5.3.1.1.
| 8 |
| Key Personnel |
| Will the Government consider requiring names of personnel against “key personnel positions”? If not, (without names of personnel) how will the Government know that the vendor can actually deliver all personnel, whether key or not, at contract start? Without this requirement how will the offerors be graded on our ability to support uninterrupted progress of existing work products? The current requirement will encourage vendors to say “yes, I have 30 key personnel that can do that” and then worry about actually finding the resources after contract award. Can names be required for key personnel without requiring resumes? |
| Names are not required for key personnel. Evaluation will be based on the qualifications proposed. |
| 9 |
| Subcontracting |
| As discussed during the Pre-Proposal Conference, please confirm that the 25% small business requirement is measured at the overall contract ID/IQ level. |
The 25% small business requirement is measured at the overall ID/IQ level; however the Government expects that the 25% requirement will be met with the initial three Task Orders combined, as that value will be a known at contract award.
| 10 |
| ID/IQ PWS Section 5.7.1 |
| “The Security Manager may be a full time or additional duty position.” Per the Pre-Proposal Conference, the requirements of the ID/IQ PWS are meant to flow down to the individual Task Orders and therefore are not repeated. Can the Government please provide clarification regarding which Task Order should cover Section 5.7.1 and other ID/IQ PWS that require pricing? |
| The referenced sentence was removed from ID/IQ PWS paragraph 5.7.1. |
| 11 |
| CLIN 0005 |
| Requires: “The contractor shall provide a sample license as part of its proposal.” If the vendor does not intend to utilize any custom software or to charge the Government for any rights, is the vendor still required to submit a sample license? |
| See newly added RFP paragraph 6-9.1.3. |
| 12 |
| FIP Status |
| Will the Government begin providing updated/current FIPs (on a weekly basis) in order for vendors to have the most current information? |
| Funds Distribution to Base (FD2B) has been updated and will be provided at a later date; all other FIPs will remain the same. No substantive changes have occurred to the FIPs provided in the RFP. |
| 13 |
| ID/IQ PWS 2.5.3.1.1 |
| Given that the requirements for the overall Program Manager is provided in the ID/IQ PWS Paragraph 2.5.3.1.1 and the requirements for TO2 and TO3 leads are provided in Paragraph 2.5.3.1.2, does this mean the Lead for TO1 is not considered “Government identified Key Personnel”? Or rather is the TO1 Lead required to meet the requirements consistent with 2.5.3.1.2? |
| Any Contractor personnel on any task order who perform the functions outlined in ID/IQ PWS paragraph 2.5.3.1 and subparagraphs are considered Government-identified key personnel. |
| # |
| Reference |
| Question |
| Response |
| 14 |
| PWS Section 2.5.3.1.2 |
| Last bullet: “Experience performing financial statement audits in DoD, federal agencies, or commercial Fortune 400 organizations”) appears to be very audit focused (not Program Management focused). Will the Government consider allowing the vendor to propose the position with appropriate skill sets, education and experience in order to accommodate a TO1 Lead? |
| Changed order of ID/IQ PWS paragraphs 2.5.3.1.2 and 2.5.3.1.3. See changes to ID/IQ PWS paragraph 2.5.3.1.3. |
| 15 |
| FIP Status |
| Will the Government begin to provide updated/current FIPs (on a weekly basis) in order for vendors to have the most current information? |
| See response to Question #12. |
| 16 |
| TO 0002 & 0003, 2.10.1 |
| TO 0002 and 0003 – Sustainment – 2.10.1 states “The contractor shall update assertion packages as identified in this PWS to maintain audit readiness.” Will every aspect of each individual assertion require update or is the Government looking for the vendor to provide a “best of breed” approach? |
| Sustainment will be performed per the OUSD(C) guidance and AF government leadership decisions. |
| 17 |
| ID/IQ PWS, 2.5.3 |
| The Government identifies an overall PM in Section 2.5.3 of the ID/IQ PWS. Does the Government expect this individual to be priced within TO1? |
| Yes. Task Order 0001 is for Program Management on the whole ID/IQ effort. |
| 18 |
| RFP Section 6-5.4.6 |
| According to RFP Section 6-1.1.1, “the offerors shall not cross reference between Volumes I, II, and III.” Provided that the organization chart is outside of page count, will the organization chart be provided to all evaluators so it can be referenced in any volume? |
| An organizational structure is only required in the Technical Volume. If presented as a chart, it is not included in the page count. If the Past Performance or Pricing Teams need access to the organizational structure/chart, it will be available to them. |
| 19 |
| Government Org Chart |
| Will the Government provide the offerors an updated Government organizational chart? |
| The most up to date Government organizational chart (dated 04.13.12) is included in Amendment 0001. |
| 20 |
| Assertion Finish Date—TO 0002 & 0003 vs. Acceleration Plan |
| As shown below, the Assertion Finish Date (according to the FIP Assertion Package TO 0002 or TO 0003) and the Assertion Due Date (according to the Acceleration Plan |
IDIQ TO (Table 1 and 3) seem to have discrepancies. Please clarify which dates are correct.
| Assessable Unit (from Task Order) |
| FIP Assertion Finish Date (per FIP in TO 0002 or 0003) |
| Assertion Due Date per Acceleration Plan IDIQ TO (Per table 1 and table 3) |
| Contracts (Vendor Pay) |
| 8/30/2013 |
| 9/30/2013 (Q4/FY13) |
| MILSTRIPS |
| 7/30/2013 |
| 9/30/2013 (Q4/FY13) |
| Contracts (MOCAS) |
| 12/31/2013 |
| 12/31/2012 (Q1/FY13) |
| FS Comp/Rprtg (with beginning balances) |
| 12/4/2013 |
| 12/31/2013 (Q1/FY14) |
| General Equipment |
| 9/30/2015 |
| 3/31/2016 (Q2/FY16) |
| Government Furnished Equipment |
| 9/30/2015 |
| 3/31/2016 (Q2/FY16) |
The dates highlighted in yellow (from chart in original question) are the correct dates. The date annotated in red is a corrected date.
| 21 |
| RFP Section 6-8.2 |
| RFP Section 6-8.2 Recency Determination states: “Each PPI reference shall have work/services (minimum of 12 months of performance) that was/were performed during the last three (3) years preceding the final solicitation release date.” If a follow on contract was awarded for the same work during the last 12 months, may the vendor combine the two contract vehicles to ensure 12 months of performance is met? Or will the Government consider changing the date from “final solicitation release date” to “final RFP due date”? |
| Paragraph 6-8.2 in Amendment 0001 now reads, “Final solicitation due date.” |
| In the Contractor’s technical volume, to what level of detail does the AF want the contractor to describe its technical approach to help the AF prepare assertion packages? We understand the technical volume requires a management/staffing plan. However, it is not clear that this plan needs to describe a specific approach or WBS to assist in preparing the assertion packages. Does the AF expect to see “how” the contractor performs tests of design and tests of effectiveness of controls, or substantive testing? |
| The Government expects to see how the Offeror would meet the requirement in accordance with the PWS and RFP. See third bullet under Subfactor 1 in RFP paragraph 6-7.3.1.1. |
| # |
| Reference |
| Question |
| Response |
| 23 |
| RFP, Section 6-9, Pages 35-36 of 48/ IDIQ PWS Page 20 of 32 |
| In the FINAL RFP, Section 6-9 Instructions for Volume III, Price (Factor) contain the requirement for the offeror to include a (6-9.26) Small Business Subcontracting / Participation Plan Contract Requirement. In FIAR Spt IDIQ Final PWS, 7.5.4 ID/IQ Deliverable requirements, Table 3 includes the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is listed as a deliverable to be included in the Technical Volume. |
Please confirm which volume the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included.
Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be included in Volume III, Price.
In Table 3 of ID/IQ PWS, removed “Technical Volume”. Now states, “All plans listed at left will be submitted as part of the ID/IQ Proposal, and will be incorporated into the contract.”
| 24 |
| RFP, Section 6-5.4.4, Page 32 of 48 |
| Section 6-5.4.4 Electronic Copies. Offerors shall NOT submit any documents in PDF that cannot be electronically searched. Offerors may use JPEG images for charts or screen shots. |
Please confirm if JPEG images for charts or screen shots need to be searchable?
See changes to RFP paragraph 6-5.4.4.
| 25 |
| RFP, Section 4a-6, Pages 24-26 of 48 |
| Section 4a-6 Organizational Conflicts of Interest of the RFP states in part: |
"...To avoid, neutralize, or mitigate a potential conflict of interest, the Contractor shall not, during performance of the contract, engage (as a prime contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or consultant) in any other contract that would design, develop, implement, operate, or sustain any system or deliverable that is based on a recommended solution provided under this contract without an OCI Plan that has been approved by the CO."
It is highly likely that DEAMS is an Air Force system that will be affected by recommendations provided under this contract (FA4890-12-R-0006). One of the potential bidders for this solicitation published a press release in March 2011 that it had been:
"...awarded a five-year, $77.5M contract to ... provide Functional Management Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) in support of the Air Force Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS) Program. The (contractor) has served as the prime contractor in the development and deployment of the DEAMS Program since 2006, and will continue its work under this competitive recompete award. The (contractor) will provide a full range of services to support the Air Force’s mission, including developing and deploying DEAMS to Scott AFB, Illinois, and establishing the core requirements to deploy to six additional Air Force sites in 2012.
Has an approved OCI plan been in place for this effort (Contract# GS-23F-0092J; Task Order# GST0511BM0042; Description: DEAMS Advisory and Assistance Services) since its start in 2006 or is the contractor precluded from bidding this solicitation (FA4890-12-R-0006)?
The Contracting Officer has been reviewing potential OCI early in the acquisition process and has been in contact with potential offerors in reference to OCI. The Contracting Officer will continue to review all OCI concerns and cannot make a contract award until significant potential conflicts are avoided, neutralized, or mitigated.
| 26 |
| IDIQ PWS, Appendix B, Table 7 |
| Table 7 - Mandatory Supplemental Documentation. Air Force Acceleration Plan - Draft AF Acceleration Plan, updated 12 March 2012 |
The embedded "AF Acceleration Plan" file could not be opened. Please make this document available, as it provides important information regarding the overall AF audit readiness effort.
The AF Acceleration Plan has been replaced with a more recent, signed document that can be opened.
| 27 |
| RFP Section 4 |
| 252.243-7002 As this will be a commercial item procurement, and this procurement includes FAR 52.212-4 which contains the process for changes please confirm that 252.243-7002, Requests for Equitable Adjustment (MAR 1998) is inadvertently included as it is applicable only to unpriced change orders under a non-commercial procurement, and is not applicable to the type of contract contemplated here. |
| The clause is applicable. |
| 28 |
| RFP Section 7 |
| As this is a FAR Part 12 acquisition, and contains FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation--Commercial Items, please confirm that the government does not intend on using the process found at FAR Part 15 as stated in 7-1.1. |
As 52.212-2 is included, can the government please identify which factors will be used to evaluate the offers in order to secure the most advantageous offer (See FAR 52.212-2 (a)).
FAR 52.212-2 has been filled out to read, “See Section 7.”
The evaluation method is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable as stated in RFP paragraph 7-1.1.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .