The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
CATS RFP
Question Set
| ID |
| Date |
| Question |
| Response |
| 1 |
| 5/25 |
| Past Performance Tool collection tool (MS Access database) was not attached. |
| The Past Performance collection tool (MS Access database) is now attached in FedBizopps.gov as of |
2 Jun 2011. Use the 2 Jun 2011 version instead of the previously posted 23 May 11 version.
| 2 |
| 5/25 |
| Section J, Attachment 6 – DD254 states the level of safe guarding of classified material is “N/A” and block 11a requires access to that classified material only at another contractor’s or government activity site. Given this, is a COMSEC account and OPSEC required? If yes, is that COMSEC account and OPSEC required pre-award? |
| No. Classified information, if any, will only be accessed at government facilities. COMSEC account access and OPSEC is not required for pre-award. A Task Order Proposal Request will identify security requirements and needed safeguarding. This will come in the form of a Task Order level DD 254. |
| 3 |
| 5/25 |
| In order to comply with submitting the Past Performance Questionnaire within seven days of RFP release, can you let us know to determine the optimum Past Performance submittal if a sub is going to do five or less percent of the task order work, do we need to submit a Past Performance for them? |
| Please see Section L and M 4.2.2 |
| 4 |
| 5/25 |
| Page 120, Para. 4.3.2, Past Performance Questionnaires - Subject paragraph states that the Offeror is responsible for sending Attachment L-2 Past Performance Questionnaires to the Customer points of contract within 7 days of RFP issuance. Can the Government explain the rationale for this short suspense to send the documents to the customers since the Past Performance Volume is not due to the Government until 29 June? If the offeror initially identifies their past performance and then decides to use a different past performance reference for the proposal response will the Offeror be allowed to send the questionnaire to the point of contact so it can be included in the past performance evaluation? |
| a. This is a recommendation to ensure that the Primary Customer has sufficient time to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire and return it to the Commodity Council. |
b. There is no evaluation criteria or requirement associated with the request to submit past performance within 7 days from the RFP issuance. The government will evaluate past performance references contained in the offerors proposal.
| 5 |
| 5/27 |
| Since it is typical to submit the questionnaires at the same time as the past performance volume itself and the deadline (7 days prior to the RFP close date) stated on Attachment L-2 also matches the deadline for Volume IV |
- Past Performance, defined in paragraph L.4.1 Early Proposal Information, can we assume the past performance questionnaires deadline stated in paragraph L.4.3.2 is incorrect (7 days after the issuance of the RFP) and that we should refer to the deadline stated on Attachment L-2 (7 days prior to the RFP close date)?
Two separate issues. The government asks that the past performance questionnaires be sent to references 7 days after RFP release. The past performance volume is requested 7 days before proposals are due.
| 6 |
| 5/27 |
| The PPI tool provided defaults Step 6, with no opportunity to complete Steps 3 through 5. Is this correct? |
| The past performance tool is not a web-based application but a Microsoft Access Database. Please refer to instruction # 4 in “Downloading the PPI Template” in Attachment L-1. It is important that you save the database to your computer prior to entering data or you will skip to Step 6. You may be defaulting to Step 6 because you have a version of the PPI tool already on your computer. Suggest deleting the current PPI tool currently on your computer and reload the PPI tool template from www.fbo.gov that was saved on 3 June 2011. This should refresh and allow you to access all steps of the, “Entering information in the PPI Template” Attachment L-1. Also, per Section L.4.3.2, “If the offeror is unable to download the past performance information tool, contact the contracting officer for assistance. |
| 7 |
| 5/26 |
| Section L.3.4.3 states: "To receive an award all contractors must have a Government approved accounting system." RFP Section L.3.4.3.1 further instructs the offerors to submit the request for a Pre Award Audit contained in Attachment L-5: Pre-Award Audit, to initiate an accounting system review if they do not have an "approved accounting system." |
We request that the Government revise the RFP in light of the following:
a. The new DFARS Interim Rule on Business Systems effective May 18, 2011 assigns the authority to approve contractors' accounting systems to the Administrative Contracting Officer.
An amendment will be issued to update Section L. 3.4.3.1. “… all contractors must have a Government acceptable accounting system” and 3.4.3 will be updated to read “….provide evidence of an acceptable accounting system as determined by the DCMA (ACO)….” This update is made to comply with the DFARS Interm Rule on Business System effective May 18, 2011 update.
| 8 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP paragraph 4.3.2 PPQs states that PPQs are to be sent within 7 calendar days of the issuance of the RFP. Is this a hard date that would disqualify a Prime from evaluation if not met? Request a slip to the date if a NLT date is needed. |
| No. |
| 9 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP Section L.10 Page Size and Format. L.10.1 states “typing shall not be less than 9 pitch using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font”. Pitch size is not an option in MS Word. Did the Government intend to state that typing shall not be less than 9 point Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font? |
| An amendment will be issued to change pitch to point. |
| 10 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP Section L.10 Page Size and Format. L.10.1 states “typing shall not be less than 9 pitch using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font”. Typing at 9 pitch (or point) for proposal narrative is smaller than what is usually provided in Air Force Proposals. Typically 9 point is the font size identified as the minimum for tables, charts, graphics, and figures (as stated in L.1.10.2). Recommend that the solicitation be revised to reflect no less than 12 point using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman font for proposal narrative. |
| An amendment will be issued that will require 12 point font, Times New Roman, for information submitted other than tables, charts, graphs, and figures. |
| 11 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP Section L16 Electronic Offers. L.16 states content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. It is common for lines to shift on the page when a document is opened on various computers, depending on the fonts and default values that reside on the individual computer. Is the Government’s intent to require offerors to ensure that all information provided in the electronic copies must be identical to hard copies, versus attempting to “freeze” each page to ensure no lines shift on the page or from page to page? |
Information provided must be identical. Freezing pages is not required.
| 12 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP Section L16 Electronic Offers. L.16 states “Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files are not permitted.” Section K and other documentation requiring signatures are usually submitted in PDF format. The solicitation is provided in PDF format. May offerors provide reproduced sections (i.e., Section K) of the solicitation in PDF format? |
An amendment will be made to allow PDF documents to be submitted where signature are required.
| 13 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP Section Attachment L-1 PP Collection Steps 3 through 5. The PPI Template does not default to the Set-up Pop-Up. The Template defaults Step 6, with no opportunity to complete Steps 3 through 5. Is it the Government’s intent to omit Steps 3 through 5 on the PPI Template? |
See question #6.
| 14 |
| 5/27 |
| RFP Section Attachment L.2.5 Proposal Cross Reference Matrix. The cross-reference matrix appears to contain a couple of incongruities. For example, Sections L and M references 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.5 appear later than Section L and M references 2.3.3.2. Additionally, Sections L and M references 2.3.1.4 are not included in the matrix. Is the Proposal Matrix provided in the solicitation intended to serve as an example to offerors, with offerors developing and completing the matrix components based on solicitation L, M, and the PWS and offerors proposal paragraph references? |
a. The order of Section L 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.5 are not significant to the evaluation process
b. Section L 2.3.1.4 was omitted and the reference number will be added to the matrix in an amendment.
c. The proposal cross reference matrix must be filled in per Section L 2.5.
| 15 |
| 5/31 |
| Please advise if you would like the Organizational Change History requirement in L 4.4 of the solicitation be included as a separate tab in the Past Performance Volume. |
| Yes, an amendment will be added to address the inclusion of the organizational change history to Volume IV. |
| 16 |
| 5/31 |
| Does the government want us to duplicate the information that will be provided in Tab 5 of the Price Proposal (Professional Compensation Plan) and insert it with Volume 2, Tab 2. Both sections reference FAR 52.222-46. |
| The requirement under paragraph 2.2.2.3 requires the contractor to “describes how the offeror, will execute an adequate and effective total compensation plan to compensate professional employees IAW FAR 52.222-46 where as Volume 3, Tab 5 requires the submission of the Professional Compensation Plan. |
| 17 |
| 5/31 |
| If you have a planned timeframe to release answers to all the questions you have received can you please provide. |
| Answers will be published as soon as possible after receipt. |
| 18 |
| 5/27 |
| Page 106 of 150/Section L.1, Subsection 1.8. The government requires the attachments in Table 1.8 be bound, separately, in three ring binders. If the bidder is preparing all documents in three ring binders, please confirm that it is acceptable to include the attachments in the proper tabs and respective volumes and that they do not have to be in a standalone binder. |
| Attachments should be included in the respective binder and not in stand alone binders. |
| 19 |
| 5/27 |
| Page 107 of 150/Section L.1, Table 1.8. Please clarify that the required electronic version for Past Performance in Table 1.8 is referring to electronically submitting the past performance information in the PPI system. In Section 1.16 on page 109, the government does not request a CD submission of Volume IV, therefore, please verify that the reference to the electronic system in Table 1.8 only refers to the PPI system and that no other electronic version of Volume IV is required. |
| The PPI tool should be printed and placed in the Volume IV as well as saved to a CD and submitted “electronically” with Volume IV. The remaining requirements of Volume IV may be submitted in the binder. |
| 20 |
| 5/27 |
| Page 109 of 150/Section 1.16. Please clarify the number of CDs required for each volume. |
| Per Section L 1.16, 1 CD per volume or you may save volumes I – III on the same CD if all required information fits on the CD. Volume IV information should reside on a separate CD. |
| 21 |
| 5/27 |
| Page 108 of 150/Section 1.10.1. The government refers to a pitch size of 9, please clarify that this should be 9 point and not 9 pitch. |
| See question #9. |
| 22 |
| 5/27 |
| Page 107 OF 150/Table 1.8. Volume IV - Table 1.8, it states “(1 Original 4 copies) Electronic Version. Is the government requesting that offerors deliver hard copies of the past performance volume at least 7 days prior to the RFP due date, or will the government accept electronic delivery instead? Or are both methods required in combination? If hard copy delivery is required at least 7 days prior to RFP due date, will offerors then be required to again deliver a hard copy past performance volume to Air Force with their final submission that includes all other proposal volumes? |
The RFP instructs offerors to submit the PPI content electronically through the PPI tool, but there is no electronic option given for transmitting the Consent letter (Attachment L-3) and Client authorization letter (Attachment L-4). Please clarify on how each section of the ”Early Proposal Information” is to be transmitted to Air Force.
a. A hard copy volume IV is requested.
b. If a complete Volume IV (with appropriate number of copies and the CD (electronic) PPI tool) is submitted prior to the RFP due date, it will not need to be resubmitted with the remaining volumes.
c. Early proposal information should be mailed or hand carried to the same address as required for proposal submission.
| 23 |
| 5/27 |
| Page 116 of 150/Section 2.4.1 AND Page 107 of 150/Table 1.8. Please clarify the content that the government expects to see with regards to the Sample TO. It appears that the information provided requires bidders to provide a “resume” or summary of qualifications for the Health Physicist. Does the government also required a written technical methodology or other content with regards to the TO? |
| Attachment L-8, Sample Task Order 1 states, “To satisfy this technical requirement, a resume or recruiting approach that satisfies government timelines must be submitted with the Price element below.” |
| 24 |
| 5/27 |
| L. 5.0 List of Section L Attachments, Past Performance Instructions (PPI) for Offerors, page 125. For this section of the PPI input, is the government requesting that offerors identify their place of work, percentage of work, and responsibilities for: |
1. Future anticipated work on Air Force CATS, or
2. Past/current work on the project written up in the PPI tool as a past performance reference?
Please indicate which one is correct.
Answer #2 is correct.
| 25 |
| 5/27 |
| Please provide the start date and period of performance, for pricing purposes. |
| See section F of the RFP. |
| 26 |
| 5/27 |
| Attachment 3, Labor Categories and Descriptions, p.83. Level II requires an Associate’s Degree + 5 years’ experience, and a Desired Bachelor’s degree. If a resource is provided with a Bachelor’s degree, please confirm that the years of experience to meet the Level II requirements would be reduced. For example, within the Level II category, Associates + 5 would be equivalent to Bachelor’s + 1 year of experience. |
| No. Years of experience requirements will not be reduced under these circumstances. |
| 27 |
| 5/27 |
| M.1.1 Basis for Contract Award, page 139. Please confirm that “price” as used in M.1.1 is intended to be the “Total Evaluated Price” as defined in section M.3.0 Price Evaluation. |
| The word “price” is used multiple times in Section M 1.1. Please provide a more specific question. |
| 28 |
| 5/27 |
| Sample Task Order 1. Will the Government provide additional descriptive information for the “Descriptions” listed in the Sample Task? This will ensure that all offerors have a common understanding of the requirements for the purposes of preparing labor rates. |
| If there is a certain description that requires additional information, please identify it and the types of additional information requested. |
8 | Page, June 3, 2011