Geospatial - Vendor Questions 9 Jun 23.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DAF Geospatial Support and Services (GSS) 2. 0 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA800323R0003
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
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
Sheet1
| Question | Document Name | Page # | Section | Description/Citation | Question | Answer |
| 1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the DD254 be required at the Task Order level or IDIQ? | A DD 254 will be required at the TO level. |
| 2 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 8, 17 | 5.2.6 , 4.1.2.6 | N/A | Is the security clearance required prior to submission? | A secret security clearance held by the prime contract is desired prior to submission. The Secret Facility Security Clearance will be validated in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) as part of the initial compliance assessment or the offeror shall indicate the need for the Government to sponsor it for the Secret Facility Clearance. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.6. |
| 3 | Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 17 Apr 23 | 1 | N/A | N/A | Will PPQs be required to be submitted back from contract POCs prior to 1 May 2023? | The date associated with submission of completed PPQs has been modified and now reads 16 June 2023. Submissions completed by the project POC will need to be submitted by the aforementioned date. See, Amendment 0001 dated 01 May 2023. |
| 4 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Was there an Industry Day or Technical Exchange Meeting, and if so when was that? | No, there was not an Industry Day or Technical Exchange Meeting. Capability sessions were held with individual vendors following a Request for Information. Those sessions were driven by the individual vendors. |
| 5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the Air Force sponsor facility clearance after the IDIQ award? | A facility clearance is desired as part of the initial compliance assessment or the offeror shall indicate the need for the Government to sponsor it for the Secret Facility Clearance. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.6. |
6 Attachment 10 - PPI Tool Instructions 17 Apr 23 8 N/A N/A In the PPI Tool (Att 10), it states 'Hard copies of the pages generated from this tool shall be used in the hard copy of the past performance volume'. We are assuming that a digital copy (pdf) will be generated which we can insert into Volume II Past Performance for Project Submissions. Is this correct? Language referring to Hard Copies has been removed from Attachment 10. New wording: "Copies of the pages generated from this tool will be used in the past performance volume subject to the limitations outlined in this RFP and should be Tab 1 of the past performance volume." See, Amendment 0001 dated 1 May 2023.
7 Attachment 10 - PPI Tool Instructions 17 Apr 23 N/A N/A N/A Will the government provide the PPI tool to multiple individuals within an organization? The Government will provide access to as many individuals as necessary from a single organization or third party in order to facilitate a complete past performance submission.
| 8 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | Is the requirement for all Task Orders under $2.6m to go to Small Business calculated based on the full period of performance of the TO (up to 5 years with options) or only for the first year and not including the option years? | Task orders valued at less than $2.6M (base+option years) will be set-aside for the small business basic IDIQ contract awardees. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, para 1.3. | |||
| 9 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | What is the expected value for the awarded IDIQ across F&O, TSB or both? | The Multiple-Award IDIQ ceiling is $220M and is inclusive of all awarded task orders. The invidiual value of task orders that will be set-aside for small business and those that will be competed among all IDIQ holders is unknown. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 1.2. |
10 N/A N/A N/A N/A Specific to the small business set-aside contracts: Can you please confirm, as with other IDIQ’s, that the requirement for the small business to do more than 50% of the work will be measured at the IDIQ contract level and not at the individual Task Order level? Yes. The government will monitor contractor compliance with the 50% rule at the IDIQ contract level. Per FAR 52.219-14(e), contractor will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both services and supplies, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the service portion of the contract
| 11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | What is the total contract/vehicle ceiling value? | The total contract ceiling value for this effort is $220M. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023, see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 1.2. |
| 12 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will this contract be used to support the USAF Intelligence community? | The GS&S IDIQ contract vehicle is designed to suport multiple facets of DAF Operations. The scope of the contract does not include intelligence specific work. The vehicle has been designed to support base operations. However, in the event that tasks outlined in the PWS align with a requirement in the intelligence community the vehicle will be available for their use. |
| 13 | GS&S Relevancy Matrix | N/A | Table 4 | Program Management | Can the Government please provide an example of a “non-government entity geospatial program office providing non-intelligence decision making support”? | Logistics/Distribution Companies managing supply chains (e.g., UPS, FedEx, Amazon), Petroleum Companies managing oil/gas refinery and transportation infrastructure, etc. |
| 14 | GS&S Relevancy Matrix | N/A | Table 4 | Project/Program Management | Can the Government provide additional information for the requirement requesting “experience with only solution architectures.”? | Table 4 Item E: Experience with geospatial segment architectures should read "Experience with geospatial segment architectures." |
| 15 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | Page 8 | 5.2.8 | Voluntary Protection Plan | The solicitation requests offerors to submit Total Case Incidence Rates (TCIR) and Day Away, Restricted and Transfer Case Rates for the past 3 years. For small and mid-sized prime and subcontractors that are not current participants, what is required for submission since there is no historical data to report? | If an offeror is not a member of the Voluntary Protection Plan please submit safety metrics and documentation of its organizational Safety Program and statistics as an alternative to Voluntary Protection Plan. If an offeror is selected as a contract holder and is awarded a Task Order that results in on site presence over 1000 hours, they can then enroll in the Voluntary Protection Plan Site-Based program at that time. See more information on the VPP program at the following link: https://www.osha.gov/vpp. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 para 5.2.7 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.1.2.7. |
| 16 | Exhibit A - Addendums 1 and 2 | 4.1.2.8 | N/A | Voluntary Protection Plan: The Offeror must provide a completed Voluntary Protection Plan, filled out IAW 5.2.7 of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Failure to provide a complete Voluntary Protection Plan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror’s proposal failed the Government’s initial proposal compliance assessment. | If the Offeror is not a member of Voluntary Protection Plan organization, is the offeror allowed to submit the safety metrics and documentation of its organizational Safety Program and statistics as an alternative to VPP? | Yes, if an offeror is not a member of the Voluntary Protection Plan then the offeror may submit safety metrics and documentation of its organizational Safety Program and statistics as an alternative to VPP. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 para 5.2.7 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.1.2.7. |
| 17 | Exhibit A - Addendums 1 and 2 | 4.1.2.8 | N/A | Voluntary Protection Plan: The Offeror must provide a completed Voluntary Protection Plan, filled out IAW 5.2.8 of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Failure to provide a complete Voluntary Protection Plan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror’s proposal failed the Government’s initial proposal compliance assessment. | If the Offeror is selected to be a contract holder and is awarded a Task Order that results in on site presence over 1000 hours, can they enroll in the VPP Site-Based program at that time? | Yes, if an offeror is selected as a contract holder and is awarded a Task Order that results in on site presence over 1000 hours, they enroll in the Voluntary Protection Plan Site-Based program at that time. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 5.2.7. |
| 18 | Attachment 10 - PPI Tool Instructions 17 Apr 23 | N/A | N/A | PPI Tool Instructions [Access Database] - Offerors must use the PPI Tool in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume in accordance with the RFP. | When and how will the PPI Tool be provided if it has to be used to submit PPI? Is this generated from the PIEE Vendor Registration? | The PPI tool has been added as Attachment 12 to the solicitation as of 02 May 2023. In the even an offeror cannot access the PPI Tool, please request a drop-off from frank.batz@us.af.mil. See, RFP Amendment 0002 dated 02 May 2023. |
| 19 | Attachment 11 - PIEE Registration 17 Apr 23 | N/A | N/A | PIEE Vendor Registration | Is PIEE the system being utilized for final proposal submission? Currently, the PIEE SOL Application indicates that "The Solicitation has been Cancelled". Is there another means through PIEE or another system by which the Offeror is to submit? | Yes, the PIEE Solicitation Module will be utlized for final proposal submissions. A system error prevented the solicitation from originally being posted. A posting is now available in PIEE with the solicitation number FA800323R1003. See, https://sam.gov/opp/80a7dfe343e441059ee97746c7caa01d/review. |
| 20 | Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 17 Apr 23 | N/A | N/A | PPQ | Attachment 10 - 3.2.2.1 -indicates PPI will be input into an Access Database that will be sent to vendors by the Contracting Officer. This is contradictory guidance on how to appropriately submit PPI. Please advise on how this action should be completed. | Offerors shall submit Present/Past Information submissions in the PPI Tool. Offeror is responsible for sending/coordinating PPQs to project POCs for completion. The designated POCs shall submit PPQs directly to the Government via the e-mail provided in Exhibit A, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.5.2. |
| 21 | Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 17 Apr 23 | N/A | N/A | PPQ | If a Past Performance Questionnaire is required, can the deadline of submission be extended to coincide with the date the at the proposal is due? | Yes, a change to the submission date was made in RFP Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 9 Jun 2023 of Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023 extending the submission deadline to 14 Jul 2023. |
| 22 | Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 17 Apr 23 | N/A | N/A | PPQ | Is Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire - required for each Project Submission even if a CPARS evaluation is available? The ability to submit a CPARS or a Past Performance Questionnaire for the Past Performance Attachment 6 requirement would be appreciated and should still enable reviewers to review projects for task and performance relevancy to FA8003-23-R-0003. | Yes, offerors should submit past performance questionnaires (PPQ) for each project submission even if a CPARS evaluation is available. The Offerors are requested to submit copies of CPARS evaluations for each Project Submission if available.The Government will review CPARS and other available past performance metrics, if available, as part of the proposal evaluation. See, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.9. |
| 23 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the government provide descriptions of current and past Task Orders? | Yes, a current Performance Work Statement (PWS) that encompasses most tasks has been provided as Exhibit F. Note: All requirements/task orders will not contain the same mixture of PWS tasks. See, RFP Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023. |
| 24 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will the government consider two (2) separate rate tables for work being performed at government facilities and work performed at contractor facilities? | Proposed rates will be used as base rates that will be adjusted for locality and competed at the task order level. A second set of rates will not be considered. Performance of work at a Government or contractor facility will be addressed at the task order level. |
| 25 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 3 | 3.2.3 | All text shall be Times New Roman font, size 12, single-spaced, on 8½” x 11” paper, excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets… Graphic presentations, including tables, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets are subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, and shall have spacing and text that is legible... | The first part of section 3.2.3 excludes charts, graphs, etc… from the font type and size restrictions; however the second part seems to state they are included. What is the minimum font size for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets? | Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Graphic presentations, including tables, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets are subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, and shall have spacing and text that is legible. Font/size for all graphic presentations shall be Times New Roman font, size 12. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.2.3. |
| 26 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 7 | 5.2.4 | The instructions state that the SF 1449 must be submitted in its entirety. | Does the government require all 81 pages to be returned as part of Volume I or are completed page 1 and 2 sufficient? | Offerors should submit the completed 81 pages of the solicitation, with their proposal submission including completed representations and certifications. Offerors should not complete or provide pricing information on pages 3 - 14 of the SF 1449. Pricing will be included in Attachment 4 - Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rate Table 17 Apr 23 and Attachment 5 - Professional Employee Compensation Plan June 2023 only. Any additional information, such as delivery or place of performance will be addressed at the task order level. If an offeror has completed the representations and certification electronically, which can be accessed on sam.gov, they may be submitted as part of their proposal. See, Solicitation pages 16-81. |
| 27 | SF 1449 | 3 - 14 | N/A | N/A | Does the government require the completion and inclusion of SF 1449 pages 3 – 14? If so, in which volume should they be included? | No, offerors should not complete or provide pricing information on pages 3 - 14 of the SF 1449. Pricing will be included in Attachment 4 - Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rate Table 17 Apr 23 and Attachment 5 - Professional Employee Compensation Plan June 2023 only. Any additional information, such as delivery or place of performance will be addressed at the task order level. |
| 28 | FAR 52.212-1 | b.4 | A technical description of the items being offered is listed in the Instructions to Offerors FAR 52.212-1. | Which proposal volume should include our technical description (according to FAR 52.212-1)? | The selection methodology for this acquisition is a performance price tradeoff and a technical description is not required to be submitted as part offerors proposal. | |
| 29 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.1 | Instructions provide a list of items to be included in Volume II - Past Performance. | Several items from page 9 are not listed in Table 1 - Proposal Organization (page 6), are these items excluded from page counts? | A majority of the past performance submission will occur through the PPI Tool and should be completed in it entirety. The items that are not referenced in Table 1 are excluded from the page count. |
| 30 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.1.d | Teaming/Subcontracting Lists | Please explain what information is required for the teaming/subcontracting lists. | A list identifying all subcontracting/teaming partners, CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID, and physical address must be submitted. Not all arrangements will have a documented or SBA joint venture agreement in place. This will allow the past performance team to easily identify the prime and subcontractors that will be evaluated as part of the past performance submission. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.3. |
| 31 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.1.g | Past Performance Questionnaire (completed and sent directly from third party) | Please clarify what is required for Past Performance Questionnaire submittal in Volume II. | The PPQ needs to be completed by the project POC in which the offeror completed the work. The PPQ will then be submitted by the project POC to the Government. See Exhibit A Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.5 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 paragraph 4.2.1.2. |
| 32 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.2 | Submission of each Offerors Project Submissions and PPQs shall be made electronically through the EZSource Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool… Offerors Project Submissions and PPQs shall only be submitted through the EZSource PPI Tool. | If project submissions are only to be submitted through the EZSource PPI Tool, please clarify what is required for Project Submissions in Volume II of the response? | Project submissions include background information specific to each past performance submission. The PPI Tool will request this information when you attempt to enter it in the database. The Offeror will then send the PPQ directly to the project POC for completion. Project POCs shall submit PPQs directly to the Government via the e-mail provided in Exhibit A, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.5.2. |
| 33 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | Evidence of Joint Venture Agreements and submission of Joint Venture Agreement applications | Do we need to provide evidence of a “submission of Joint Venture Agreement applications” if the JV is already approved? |
| Yes, offerors shall provide evidence of an SBA approved joint venture IAW Section 5.2.5, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of Exhibit A as part of the Contract Information volume. | ||||||
| 34 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.1.a | Title/Introduction Page - Past Performance Volume II | Can the offeror use the title/introduction page to include a short summary of offeror's experience? | Yes, the title/introduction page may include a short summary of offeror's experience, so long as the offerors submission complies with the stated page limitations. |
| 35 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.3.1 | Maximum of five (5) Project Submissions | Can the five project submissions be different than the contracts/task orders chosen for PPQ submittal? | No. The project submissions entered into the PPI Tool must be the same as the projects chosen for PPQ submittal. The project submission captures relevant contract information that will be validated via the corresponding PPQs, which will be submitted by the project POC to the Government. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.2 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.2.1.2. |
| 36 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.3.1 | Maximum of five (5) Project Submissions | Are the five project submissions restricted by the recency instructions for past performance? | Yes. Recency is defined as "the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for 365 days from the date of issuance of the solicitation." See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.4.2 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.2.2.1. |
| 37 | SAM/PIEE | N/A | N/A | Notice on SAM stating PIEE is using a different Solicitation Number | Please clarify which solicitation number should be used on the proposal volumes and final submittal. | The correct solicitation number is FA800323R1003 and should be used on the proposal volumes and final submittal. A system error prevented the solicitation from originally being posted with the original solicitation number FA800323R0003. A posting has now been made in PIEE with the solicitation number FA800323R1003. FA800323R1003 was used as a system work around. The description of both the sam.gov and Solicitation Module posting indicates the discrepancy. |
| 38 | PPI Tool | N/A | N/A | Place of Work on Application Setup | What is the appropriate response for place of work? | More information is needed to answer this question definitively. However, if this is in reference to a specific project, please enter where performance of the project occurred. If this is in reference to the IDIQ for which this solicitation was released, San Antonio, TX 78234 can be entered. |
| 39 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | The table 4 Relevancy Matrix in Exhibit A seems to make it overly complicated to get a “very relevant” rating across all projects. There is little chance of many projects being able to score well across the four areas. Are the four areas weighted evenly in evaluation? Does each evaluation area make up 25% of a project’s relevancy score? If so, that would seem to make it next to impossible for small businesses with smaller-scale projects to achieve relevant ratings. | Offeror PPI submissions will be evaluted for relevancy in each of the four areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. Within each of the Offeror submittals, the PPI should demonstrate a degree of relevant experience with at least one of the task areas (Communication & Training, Program Management, Data & Technical Management, & Rapid Response) in Table 4. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute to the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Table 4. |
| 40 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | The table 4 Relevancy Matrix in Exhibit A is divided into 4 areas, but those areas do not seem to accurately represent the 12 scope areas of the PWS. This would seem to give unfair weight to certain sections of the PWS. For example, Relevancy criteria 4, “Rapid Response,” is focused almost entirely on “Task 12 – Contingency/Crisis/Surge Support.” This means a full 25% of a given relevancy rating comes from only 1 of 12 PWS areas, while the largest scope area, “Task 5 – Geospatial Data” is very under-represented in the evaluation factors. We suggest adding additional relevancy areas to better represent the entirety of the PWS to encourage a more fairly-weighted rating system that reflects a broader set of evaluation factors. | The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas in order to assist the government with the stratification of offerors. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4. |
| 41 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | This is a geospatial services contract, but some core geospatial support activities are not well represented in the Relevancy Matrix in Exhibit A that projects will be evaluated against. In the matrix, it seems that geospatial activities are limited to Communication & Training, Program Management, Data & Technical Management, and Rapid Response. These categories will score basic geospatial support projects poorly. The only place that score data collection capabilities, LiDAR, raster data, aerial collection, etc. is confined to rapid response in support of urgent needs, crisis support, emergency scenarios, etc. Would the Government consider adding evaluations factors that consider non-urgent geospatial support activities? | The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas in order to assist the government with the stratification of offerors. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4. |
| 42 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | The PPQs refer to “functional areas,” offerors are to be evaluated against. However, the PWS is divided into 12 “functional areas.” Exhibit A does not list functional areas or functional tasks. Can you explain the relationship between the 12 functional tasks of the PWS and the 4 functional areas evaluators will be using? It is unclear how exactly the 12 functional tasks are broken down into the 4 functional areas and makes crafting a response more difficult. For example, an offeror may be able to be evaluated highly across the narrower scope of the 4 functional areas but be unable to perform much of the full PWS and vice versa. This unclear distinction may add additional risk to both contractors and the Government. | Within each of the Offeror submittals, the PPI should demonstrate a degree of relevant experience with at least one of the areas in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute to the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. |
The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas in order to assist the government with the stratification of offerors. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4.
43 Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 N/A N/A N/A The scoring of the Relevancy Matrix is confusing. For example, on the relevancy Matrix for one of our past performances on 1. Communication and Training we are not sure what rating to put given this situation:
We have relevancy in A, B, C, D, F, and G (which covers 6 of the 8 areas) However, according to the Matrix, this Past Performance doesn’t rate Very Relevant because we are missing E. This past performance doesn’t rate Relevant either because we are missing E. We don’t rate Somewhat Relevant because we are missing H. We don’t rate Not Relevant because we meet 6 of the 8 other criteria.
How is the rating system fair or justified when a past performance covers 75% of the Matrix and we must grade it Not Applicable? The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas in order to assist the government with the stratification of offerors. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4.
| 44 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | In place of commitment letters, are signed Teaming Agreements permitted, or will you be providing a commitment letter template like the consent letter? | No, Teaming Agreements are not permitted in place of the RFP Attachment 8 - Subcontractor Consent Letter. However, they can be included in addition to RFP Attachment 8 - Subcontractor Consent Letter. |
| 45 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Due to the highly specific nature of the relevancy matrix, table 4, exhibit A, it would seem the scoring matrix for GS&S II will not allow many past performance projects from GS&S I to score even “Somewhat Relevant.” Would the Government consider an alternate or broader evaluation system that takes into account the full range of the PWS as opposed to the more narrowly defined 4 relevancy areas? | The relevancy matrix takes into account the full range of the PWS requirements focusing on the most important task areas needed for a contractor to be successful through the duration of the IDIQ performance period. The Government does not expect a single project to demonstrate relevancy in all task areas. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute to the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4. |
| 46 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | When using an IDIQ with multiple TO as a single project, how will you combine the different KO PPQs into one evaluation? | Past Performance Projects should not be submitted at the ID/IQ level. Rather offerors should submit projects at the task order level if citing an ID/IQ contract. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. |
| 47 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 19 | 4.2.2 | N/A | With only five PPQs used to meet the PPQ requirement, can an IDIQ PPQ be used to meet the requirements across multiple Tasks or is the AF looking for individual Task Orders off an IDIQ to meet the requirement of multiple Tasks. | Past Performance Projects should not be submitted at the ID/IQ level. Rather offerors should submit projects at the task order level if citing an ID/IQ contract. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix. |
| 48 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 12 | 5.5 | N/A | Since individuals with clearances are higher salaried employees than those without a clearance and since the planned Task Orders may require individuals with a clearance, is the Government requiring the Bidders to provide rates with clearances? In order to set all potential rates from vendors at an equal footing, we recommend the Government requests Pricing based on TS/SCI. | No, the Government is not requiring offerors to propose labor rates inclusive of clearances. Proposed rates will be used as base rates that will be adjusted for locality and competed at the task order level. Rates of personnel that require a clearance will be addressed at the task order level. |
| 49 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 12 | 5.5 | N/A | Can the Government confirm the rates required for submission are CONUS rates and any rates for positions to be performed OCONUS will be addressed at each Task Order level? | Yes, proposed rates will be used as base rates that will be adjusted for locality (for both CONUS and OCONUS) and competed at the task order level. |
| 50 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 8 | 5.2.8 | N/A | Can the Government provide more specific information on what they expect to see in the Voluntary Protection Plan? Several of our teammates have been performing work on Air Force installations but have never been required to submit a Voluntary Protection Plan as their proposal submissions. Please also confirm this requirement is for both the Prime Offeror and its Subcontractors, as applicable. | The Government is requesting a Voluntary Protection Plan that has been vetted through OSHA to prevent fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through a system focused on: hazard prevention and control; worksite analysis; training; and management commitment and worker involvement. If an offeror is not a member of the Voluntary Protection Program please submit safety metrics and documentation of its organizational Safety Program and statistics as an alternative to Voluntary Protection Plan. If an offeror is selected as a contract holder and is awarded a Task Order that results in on site presence over 1000 hours, they can then enroll in the Voluntary Protection Plan Site-Based program at that time. See more information on the Voluntary Protection Program at the following link: https://www.osha.gov/vpp. The Voluntary Protection Plan submissions is required of the prime offeror only. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.7 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 paragraph 4.1.2.7. |
| 51 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 3 | 3.2.2.1 | N/A | Can the Offeror requesting the user role within the CSP several weeks prior to proposal submission to ensure the proposal can be submitted without any challenges or a request to register have to be completed at the time of proposal submission? | Yes, Offerors shall request the user role within the PIEE Solicitation Module several weeks prior to proposal submission to avoid any challenges and identify the need for additional changes to Exhibit A, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.2.2.1. |
| 52 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 3 | 3.2.3 | N/A | Please confirm graphic presentations, including tables, diagrams, headers, and footers are subject to the Times New Roman font, size 12 requirements or if size 10 is acceptable. | Offerors shall submit proposals in accordance with the Exhibit A, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Graphic presentations, including tables, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets are subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, and shall have spacing and text that is legible. Font/size for all graphic presentations shall be Times New Roman font, size 12. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.2.3. |
| 53 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3.3.1 | N/A | Is there a page limit for each of the Project Submissions? | No there is not a page limit. Offeror should enter Project Submission inputs into the PPI tool. There is not a page limit on project submissions inputed into the PPI Tool and each submission should be completed in its entirety. Offerors should then send Past Performance Questionnaires to project POCs for completion. The designated POCs shall submit PPQ through the EZSource PPI Tool. See, Exhibit A, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.2.1.2. |
| 54 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | 19 | 4.2.2.2 | N/A | As related to Relevancy, can the Government clarify if the Projects submitted have to address how the work being cited is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the Tasks as described in the PWS and show its alignment to any of the criteria listed in Table 4 or is the Offeror required to only submit Projects that align to any of the criteria in Table 4 by providing citations related to either Communication & Training, Program Management, Data & Technical Management, and/or Rapid Response? | Within each of the Offeror submittals, the PPI should demonstrate a degree of relevant experience with at least one of the areas in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Table 4. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. |
The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas in order to assist the government with the stratification of offerors. Offerors are expected to self perform or assemble a team that can support all PWS functions and can demonstrate experience peforming those areas delinated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Table 4 - Relevancy Matrix.
| 55 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | In 5.2.7 of Exhibit A, it refers to a voluntary protection plan. In the text that follows it is a voluntary protection program (VPP). Is there a difference between the voluntary protection plan and the voluntary protection program? | Yes, there is a difference between the Voluntary Protection Program and the Voluntary Protection Plan. The Voluntary Protection Program references terminolgy used by OSHA to identify programs that prevent fatalities, injuries, and illnesses through a system focused on: hazard prevention and control; worksite analysis; training; and management commitment and worker involvement. The Voluntary Protection Plan will outline how an organization has/will implement effective safety and health programs to avoid incident. "(VPP)" has been removed via Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023 from Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.7 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.1.2.7. |
| 56 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Is OSHA’s voluntary protection program (VPP) the same as or related to the Air Force’s VPP? | Yes, OSHA’s voluntary protection program is the same program as the AF program in Volume I. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.7 for additional details. |
| 57 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Regarding the VPP, is anything required for the proposal other than Total Case Incidence Rates (TCIR) and Day Away, Restricted, and/or Transfer Case Rates (DART) information? | An outline of the offeror's Voluntary Protection Plan, which has been vetted by OSHA shall be submitted for verification. See Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.7 for additional details. |
| 58 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | In the Relevancy Matrix (Exhibit A, table 4) under Rapid Response why are there two evaluation factors that say the same thing (A and D)? | A substantive change to all four task areas has been made to the Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4, Section 4. |
| 59 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | In the Relevancy Matrix (Exhibit A, table 4) under Rapid Response why are there two evaluation factors that basically say the same factor (B and F). | A substantive change to all four task areas has been made to the Relevancy Matrix. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4, Section 4. |
| 60 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | In the Relevancy Matrix (Exhibit A, table 4) why is there no evaluation factor for Task 10 in the PWS for GIS Application Development? | The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas and do not directly align with the 12 task area titles. |
| 61 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | In the Relevancy Matrix (Exhibit A, table 4) why is there no evaluation factor for Task 11 in the PWS for Help Desk support? | The relevancy definitions are based on key functions performed in various PWS task areas and do not directly align with the 12 task area titles. |
| 62 | Exhibit A – Addendums -1 and -2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | If there are any changes made to the Relevancy Matrix (Exhibit A, table 4) will they be reflected/updated in the PPQs? | Changes made in Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Table 4, task area 4 have been incorporated into Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, RFP Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) dated 9 Jun 23. |
| 63 | Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will a Past Performance project be evaluated for the one or two sections of the Relevancy Matrix (Exhibit A, table 4) it best supports, or are all Past Performances evaluated across the entire Relevancy Matrix? | Project Submissions will be evaluated against all four task areas. Within each of the Offeror submittals, the PPI should demonstrate a degree relevant experience with at least one of the areas in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Table 4. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. |
| 64 | Exhibit A | 7 | 5.2.2 | Table of Contents shall contain detailed information for all volumes. | The instructions in 5.2.2 are under the Contract Information Volume I. There aren't instructions for Table of Contents for Volumes II, III or IV (although on page 13 Table of Contents is listed in the price volume sections). Does the government only want one Table of Contents to appear in Volume I that includes the Table of Contents for Volumes II, III and IV? For ease of evaluation, can we instead include a Table of Contents at the beginning of each volume for that volume? | Yes, a proposal Table of Contents shall contain detailed information for all volumes. A table of contents specific to each individual Factor is required be included at the beginning of each identified volume. The Table of Contents will not count against page limitations. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.2.2. |
| 65 | Exhibit A | 19 | 4.2.2.2 | Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with Table 4 the FA8003-23-R-0003 - GS&S Relevancy matrix, DoD Standards,… | Please clarify what DoD standards are in regards to the evaluation of relevancy. | The Government was referencing the DoD Source Selection Procedures (Aug 2022). See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.2.2.2. |
| 66 | Exhibit A | 18 | 4.2.1.2 | Submission of RFP Attachment 6: Past Performance Questionnaire | If a subcontractor is on multiple teams is a separate PPQ required from the referenced customer for each proposal response? | If the offeror wants subcontractor past performance considered for multiple offerors proposals, specific to an effort or contract, a PPQ should be submitted for that effort with each offeror's proposal as applicable. |
67 Exhibit A (Draft) 19 4.2.2.2.1 For the purposes of the instant acquisition relevancy may be considered on an individual or aggregate basis. Can you confirm our assumption that the Offeror's past performance relevancy will be looked at cumulatively across all 5 PPQs and not individually for relevancy rating? The Draft Exhibit A no longer applies to this acquisition.
Within each of the Offeror submittals, the PPI should demonstrate a degree of relevant experience with at least one of the areas in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 of Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Table 4. The depth of an offerors relevant experience will be evaluated at the aggregate level and will contribute to the offerors assigned Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.
| 68 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 19 | 4.2.2.2 | DoD Standards mentioned in 4.2.2.2 Relevancy | Can you please expand on DoD Standards mentioned in 4.2.2.2 Relevancy? Is this in reference to DoDI 8130.1 under DODD 5135.02 for IGI&S governance procedures pursuant to DODDs 5105.60? If not, please give reference to the proper standards that relevancy is requested for. | The Government was referencing the DoD Source Selection Procedures (Aug 2022). See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.2.2.2. |
| 69 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 22 | Table 1 | N/A | Is there a Page limit for Past Performance Reports from PPI Tool? | Past Performance Reports are not referenced in Exhibit A. There is not a page limit for Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or Project Submissions in the PPI Tool. See Exhibit A Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Table 1. |
| 70 | Attachment 12 - PPI Tool | N/A | N/A | N/A | The PPI tool has a DUNS number field. DUNS was replaced by UEI. Does that field accept UEI ? | The offeror should enter the organization's UEI. The DUNS block is not mandatory, but the field allows up to 50 characters. Offerors may enter their UEI number in this field. |
| 71 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 22 | Table 1 | N/A | The page limit to the CPARS Evaluations (last section of Vol II) is 5 pages. Many individual CPARS may exceed 5 pages, so if there are more than one CPARS submitted, page limit will be exceeded. Can you clarify? | The page limitations for CPARS evaluations was an error and has been modified to No Limit (in its entirety) to allow for complete submissions. See Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Table 1. |
| 72 | Attachment 4 - Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rate Table | N/A | N/A | N/A | In Attachment 4 - Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rate Table, the table does not include ask for On-Site vs. Off-Site rates. Are the rates provided in the Rate Table specific to when an employee is working Off a Government Site as a ceiling rate? | Proposed rates will be used as base rates that will be adjusted for locality and competed at the task order level. A second set of rates will not be considered. Performance of work at a Government or contractor facility will be addressed at the task order level. |
| 73 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 22 | Table 1 | N/A | Page 9 of Exhibit A - Factor 1: Past Performance (Volume II), 5.3.1 - Are there page limits for each of items a through d? | See Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Table 1 for the page limits in reference to Volume II. Any other document referenced by Exhibit A Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.1 should be completed in its entirety. |
| 74 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 11 | 5.3.7 | N/A | 5.3.7 Organizational Structure Change History is referenced as a topic under Factor 1: Past Performance (Volume II), but is not listed in the table 1 Proposal Organization on page 6 of Exhibit A. Where should this section be placed and is there a page limit for it? | The Organizational Structure Change History should be addressed as part of Volume II. The Organizational Structure Change History has no page limit and should be completed in its entirety. See Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also, Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Table 1 and paragraph 5.3.1 and, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 4.2.1.5. |
| 75 | Attachments 1, 3, and 5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | Are excel file Attachments 1, 3, and 5 to be submitted independently as stand-alone excel files or are they to be incorporated into Volume documents as PDF's? | Yes, stand-alone excel files for Attachments 1, 3, and 5 should be submitted electronically with each offeror's applicable proposal volumes per Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023 and Exhibit A dated 9 Jun 23, Addendum to 52.212-1, Table 1. A locked PDF may be incorporated into an offereor's corresponding proposal volume if they wish to do so. Submission of a locked PDF will have no effect on the page count. |
| 76 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 9 | 5.3 | There seems to be some discrepancies between what’s in the requirements and the naming of the documents referenced. | Would the Government please clarify and provide updated documents with the correct document titles/names? | Document titles/names have been confirmed and updated throughout the solicitation as required. |
| 77 | Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) | The instructions state in the 3rd paragraph states, “…we request a written response no later than 01 May 2023.” | Would the government please update this as the date highlighted in the instructions has passed? | The date associated with submission of completed PPQs has been modified and now reads 14 Jul 2023. Submissions completed by the project POC will need to be submitted by the aforementioned date. See, Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 2023; see also Attachment 6 dated 9 Jun 23. | ||
| 78 | Exhibit A - Addendums -1 and -2 | 10 | 5.3.4.2 | The requirements state for the offeror to complete the required items under Section I – General Information. Section I of Attachment 6 is Contract Identification. | Is the verbiage used for Section I header of Attachment 6 mis-labeled? Would the government please confirm this or provide a revised/updated Attachment? | Yes, the Section 1 header of Attachment 6 has been modified. Section 1 of Attachment 6 is to be completed by the offeror. Section 1 identifies the project and background information specific to each past performance submission. Offeror should then send Past Performance Questionnaires to project POCs for completion. The designated POCs shall submit PPQs directly to the Government via the e-mail provided in Exhibit A, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.3.5.2 for details. See Amendment 0003 dated 9 Jun 23; see also, RFP Attachment 6 dated 9 Jun 23. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .