HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_8-Feb-18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC) Basic Center Operations (BCO)
- Solicitation number
- FA8075-18-R-0001
About this file
This document contains questions and responses regarding a solicitation for Homeland Defense and Security Information Analysis Center (HDIAC) Basic Center Operations (BCO). The solicitation requests proposals to provide analysis, research, outreach, and information management support across eight technical focus areas. The incumbent contractor will transition the HDIAC website, information storage system, and all associated content to the new awardee. The solicitation is set aside for small businesses and proposals are due by 1 February 2018, with an amendment providing revisions issued in response to questions. The Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Installation Contracting Agency is the contracting agency. The solicitation includes core analysis tasks, event-driven tasks, and data requirements delivery priced using cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed price, and cost-only contract line items.
View the file
Other files
| 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_Amd1.docx | DOCX document | |
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_26-Jan-18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HDIAC_BCO_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_18-Jan-18.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HDIAC_BCO_RFP.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- 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 8 February 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. |
| 7 | “Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) already work across the whole of government and public-private partnerships to tackle difficult problems that challenge the safety, stability and well-being of our nation. They offer a unique and unbiased vantage point to provide innovative, practical analysis and solutions across the eight (8) HDIAC focus areas. Can offerors have FFRDCs as team partners/sub-contractors in support of the HDIAC contract?” | Yes. | |
| 8 | Section L4.4.4 | Can the Offeror provide the physical address and associated cage code for multiple facilities to permit the storage of classified material at one location during transition and then moved to the primary location once transition is complete and BCO fully operational? Can the initial location be a team partner's TS cleared facility? | Yes to both questions. |
| 9 | Will the existing HDIAC.org domain, URL, website source code and content transition in its entirety to the awardee at time of contract award? | Yes, the World Wide Web Page protocol, information, links, html, site, list serve member's email addresses and options and any other information, data, processes, etc. needed to successfully transfer/transition the information concerning HDIAC will be transferred to the awardee during the transition phase-in. | |
| 10 | Will the current HDIAC ISS transition in its entirety to the awardee at the time of contract award? | ISS data, which encompasses the code, format, utility, data, processes and/or any other item needed to convert, import, access and utilize the data currently available within ISS is transferable during the transition phase-in. | |
| 11 | Can the Offeror's team partners and/or sub-contractors be a Prime contractor on either the TAT or MAC contracts? | Yes. However, team partners and/or sub-contractors who are also primes on the TAT or MAC contracts present a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). In accordance with (IAW) L6.9, Identification of any actual or potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (reference PWS paragraph 1.3.2) that may require the Offeror and/or subcontractors/teaming partners to submit a mitigation plan for consideration by the Contracting Officer during the proposal period as part of its Volume IV - Contract Documentation. A mitigation plan, if required, shall be evaluated by the Contracting Officer IAW FAR 9.5. | |
| 12 | Does the small business offeror have to conduct a minimum of 51% of the total effort (labor hours) or 51% of the value ($ Revenue) of the work proposed? | At least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the prime contractor. Reference PWS, Section C, 1.14 and FAR clause 52.219-14, "Limitations on Subcontracting (Jan 2017)" for requirements. | |
| 13 | Past Performance | If a Government customer is unwilling to complete the HDIAC Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) because their policy is use CPARs to answer inquiries, can the Offeror submit its latest CPARs in place of the PPQ? | If a PPQ can not be obtained, the past performance information may be obtained by the Government through other sources as identified in Section M3.1.1. |
| 14 | Appendix 5.2 | Appendix 5.2 provides estimates of historical workload for several primary types of services provided by the incumbent BCO (HDIAC) contractor. Can the Government please further divide these workload estimates to provide a separate workload estimate for each technical focus area? | No, statistics are not available. However, the preponderance of work falls into four focus areas: Homeland Defense, Critical Infrastructure Protection, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear Defense. |
| 15 | Past Performance | The Government intends to evaluate past performance through an analysis of the Offeror’s recent, relevant, quality and confidence of contract performance. The Government provided Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment L-1) requests a narrative regarding recency, relevance and quality but not confidence. If a narrative on confidence is not required in Attachment L-1, where should it be addressed by the Offeror? | Confidence Assessment is not addressed by the Offeror. Confidence Assessment is an evaluation factor assessed by the Government. Reference RFP Section M3.1.7. |
| 16 | Section 1.3.2, Contractor Responsibilities - General | Can IAC MAC prime contractors subcontract to the BCO prime? | See answer to Question #11. |
| 17 | Section 1.4.4.11, HDIAC Service Promotion | The first paragraph states that "The contractor will plan to provide physical representation at a minimum of one and a maximum of two venues per year at which government experts and other governmental interested parties in the homeland defense and security field will be present." What constitutes a venue? Are these different from conferences, symposia, or customer outreach/engagement? | The venue is the same as conferences, symposia, or customer outreach/engagements. |
| 18 | Section B, CLIN 0003, Core Analysis Tasks and/or ETIs | This CLIN is only 12 months, and the cost structure appears incorrect. Please confirm. | The CLIN's period of performance and cost-type is correct. Please read the CLIN extended description. This CLIN is to provide the scope for CPFF & FFP task orders to be issued against individual pricing of CAT or ETI requirements. If the Government exercises the option(s) for CLIN 0002XX, the ordering period dates will be extended for CLIN 0003. |
| 19 | Section B, CLIN 0004, RDT&E Core Analysis Tasks | This CLIN is only 12 months, and the cost structure appears incorrect. Please confirm. | See response to Question #1. The extended description is incorrect and was revised in Amendment 1. The cost structure for DATA is COST but is not separately priced. If the Government exercises the option(s) for CLIN 0002XX, the ordering period dates will be extended for CLIN 0004. |
| 20 | Attachment J-10, BOE Table | The labor categories are not flowing through from the Labor Hrs & Cost tab. Is this an oversight? Does DTIC want the labor categories re-entered on the BOE tab, or will a new version of J-10 be issued that links all these tabs? | This is not an error. The labor categories and hours will need to be manually entered into the Yr2 BOE tab which is a standalone spreadsheet. |
| 21 | Section H | Section H is missing from the RFP. Please confirm a copy of Section H will be provided via amendment/modification to the RFP. | There is no Section H in the RFP. Recent Air Force Guidance prohibits the use of any non-standard H clauses. |
| 22 | Will there be an amendment to the RFP to modify the requirements as the result of questions submitted within 14 days of the RFP release? If so, will there be an extension? | Amendment 1 with revisions was issued. There were no significant changes that would result in a need for an extension. Therefore there will be no extension at this time. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .