HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_26-Jan-18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 11 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC) Basic Center Operations (BCO) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8075-18-R-0001
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a solicitation for the Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center Basic Center Operations. The solicitation seeks proposals to provide analytical and technical support services to the Department of Defense Information Analysis Centers program. Key details include: the solicitation number is FA8075-18-R-0001; the acquisition is a 100% small business set-aside; all inquiries and questions on the solicitation are due by 1 February 2018; the past performance evaluation criteria has been revised since release of the draft solicitation; responses clarify descriptions for contract line items and provide samples of past products and training as examples rather than proposed work.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Amd2.docx | DOCX document | |
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_13-Feb-18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_8-Feb-18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Amd1.docx | DOCX document | |
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| HDIAC_BCO_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_18-Jan-18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
| HDIAC BCO RFP Q&A as of 26 January 2018 | |||
| # | Solicitation Section | Question/Comment | Response |
| 1 | Section B, Page 6. | Does CLIN0004 have an incorrect description? | Yes it does have an incorrect description. The description will be changed to reflect the following: "Develop and provide data in accordance with Section J, Exhibit A, DD Form 1423 (Contract Data Requirements List) made part of this solicitation/contract. This CLIN is Not Separately Priced. (If the government exercises the option(s) for CLIN 0002XX, the ordering period dates will be extended for CLIN 0004)." This will be revised in Amendment 1. |
| 2 | Section C1.4.1.8 | Can the space, equipment, storage containers be clarified? For example: |
a. Of the containers, are they full (e.g., are all of the five drawers of the safe full?)?
b. Where a square footage for usage is mentioned, is all that space necessary, or is it just what is currently being used because it’s available?
| The storage containers are partially filled. The square footage is what is currently being used and is partially filled. | |||
| 3 | Section C1.4.2.2 | The table appears to be a list of products that have already been published. Should the lead-in sentence be corrected to indicate that they are examples of past work, not ideas for future work? | The sentence will be changed for clarification to the following: "A sample of past products developed is listed below:" This will be revised in Amendment 1. |
| 4 | Section C1.4.2.3 | Same as #3 regarding training. | Yes, the sentence will be changed to "A sample of past course offerings are listed below:" This will be revised in Amendment 1. |
| 5 | Section L , Section 4: Evaluation, Page 116 | The list of ratings for PERFORMANCE LEVEL seems incomplete, particularly when compared to CPARS, in that there is no “GOOD” and/or “VERY GOOD” rating between “SATISFACTORY” and “EXCEPTIONAL”. Can one be added so reviewers have the opportunity to provide a rating that’s better than “SATISFACTORY” but not quite “EXECEPTIONAL?” | No, the ratings will remain the same. The DoD mandatory procedures for the overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating does not have a "GOOD" and/or "VERY GOOD" either. |
| 6 | Section M3.1.3 Relevance, Page 125 | Since there is overlap in the technologies covered by the eight focus areas described on pages 117-118, can/should past performance examples be identified as covering more than one if that is the case? How will this impact the requirements for the number of examples to be provided by the prime and by the subs? | Yes, a single past performance example can cover multiple/all focus areas, and they should be identified as doing so. See RFP Section M3.1.3 for relevance requirements. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .