OPS - Q and A Responses July 2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Overhead Production Support (OPS) Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA822422R0006
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a draft solicitation for Overhead Production Support (OPS) services. The solicitation is being issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Sustainment Center to acquire OPS services in support of the OPS multiple-award IDIQ contract. Services will include logistical support, human resources, and staffing across multiple states including Utah, Arizona and Texas. The response document addresses 52 questions from potential offerors seeking clarification on requirements for proposals, past performance evaluation, labor categories, rates, and place of performance. Details provided clarify proposal organization, evaluation criteria, and requirements for experience examples. The closing date for proposals and any amendments is also addressed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 38
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
Basic PWS
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - July 2022 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 |
52.212-1 Addendum
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - July 2022 | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | Attachment 8, Page 6, Section 1.3.3: Page Size and Format and Section 2.1: Volume I, Factor 1: Cost/Price General and Attachment 2 TEP Matrix | Attachment 8, Page 6, Section 1.3.3 states: "Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be Times New Roman and no less than 12 point font." Section 2.1: Volume I, Factor 1: Cost/Price General instructs offeror to include TEP Matrix Worksheet as section 3-1 of the Cost/Price Volume. | Attachment 2's TEP Matrix is in Arial Narrow 11 point font. Will the government please confirm that the offeror can include the TEP Matrix Worksheet in the Cost/Price Volume in Arial Narrow 11 point font instead of the RFP-designated 12 pt TNR? | Inputs made in the TEP Matrix shall be in Arial Narrow 11 point font. | |
| 2 | Attachment 8, Page 6, Section 1.3.7: Indexing | Attachment 8, Page 6, Section 1.3.7 states: "Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections." | Since this is an electric submission, will the Government please clarify their intent for tab indexing for sections, and whether page numbering should be consecutive throughout the document or consecutive per section (i.e., major sections restart page numbers)? | "Tab indexing" has been replaced with "Headings and (as appropriate) subheadings" | |
| 3 | Attachment 10 Past Performance Information Sheet, E. Primary customer points of contact | The Note states: "For Government contracts or orders, provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles.)" but only 2 titles listed: PM and POC. | Will the Government please clarify whether offerors are to provide two or three customer points of contact? | "all three" has been replaced with "both" | |
| 4 | Attachment 10 Past Performance Information Sheet, E. Primary customer points of contact | Number and title of customer points of contact required for each past performance. | Will the Government please confirm the offeror must include, at a minimum, one customer point of contact, and that the contact may be the COR if a PM and/or PCO is not available? | Offerors are required to provide the point of contract information for the Program Manager or person fulfilling the equivalent role and the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) may be used in place of the PCO. | |
| 5 | Attachment 8, Page 6, Section 1.3.3 Table 1: Proposal Organization and Attachment 8, Page 6, Section 4.2 Past Performance Summary | No page limit is specified for the Past Performance Summary section | Will the Government please verify there is not a page limit for the Past Performance Summary section of Volume III Past Performance? | Attachment 8 Section 4.2 has been updated, including the section heading. Separate past performance summaries are not requested. Offerors shall answer all questions in the Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS), including items outlined in Attachment 8 Section 4.2. | |
| 6 | 1.1 General | Proposals must be received by the Contracting Officer Mr. Bradley Tobler, at bradley.tobler.2@us.af.mil no later than the date and time specified in Section A of the solicitation. There is no Section A in the solicitation. | |||
| 1.1 General The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from solicitation closing. | Assuming this is referring to the Contract Documentation Volume IV? | Yes, this is referencing the Contract Documentation Volume IV. References to Section A have been removed. | |||
| 7 | 1.2.5 Amendments to Solicitation | …offerors shall acknowledge each amendment by signing and returning the front page of each amendment with the proposal submission. | Are these to be included with the Contract Documentation volume? And, if so, in which section should they be included? | Yes, if solicitation amendments are issued, the signed front page of each Amendment shall be included with the Signature page of the SF 1449 of Volume IV. |
| 8 | 1.3.1 General | The Past Performance Summary discussed in Section 4 of the ITO is not included in Table 1: Proposal Organization on page 6, nor is there a page limit specified for this document. | Can the Government please update Table 1: Proposal Organization to include the Past Performance Summary, allow offerors 3 pages, and confirm if this is a section of the Past Performance Volume or a stand alone document? | Offerors are to use Attachment 10 of the Solicitation, Past Performance Information Sheets. The page limit of the Past Performance Information Sheet is 4 pages for each example (maximum of three examples). | |
| 9 | 1.3.1 General | The Past Performance Questionnaires are listed in Table 1: Proposal Organization, yet those are to be returned directly to the Government from our customers according to paragraph 4.5 and directions in Attachment 12. | Can the Government please update Table 1: Proposal Organization to reflect only the documents to be included in our Past Performance volume for submittal? | A general outline has been added to paragraph 4.1 which includes the items the Offeror shall submit as part of Volume III. | |
| 10 | 1.3.3 Page Size and Format | There is no reference to line spacing. Can the government confirm that proposal volumes can be single-spaced? | Volume II can be single spaced. | ||
| 11 | Volume 2 | Table 1; Page 6 | Due to the complex requirements that offerors are required to write to in Volume 2, especially with the integration of actual demonstration of capabilities, we recommend the government double the page limit to 30 pages to allow offerors to speak completely to all requirements. | The total page limit for Volume II will be 15 pages. Please include only information necessary to address the requirements. | |
| 12 | 2.1 General | The general outline (table on page 8) for the Cost/Price volume includes a "General", but there is no discussion in subsequent sections regarding the requirements for what is to be included. | Can the Government please clarify the expectation for the General section to be included in the Cost/Price volume as it relates to the ITO and to the evaluation criteria? | This has been updated. | |
| 13 | Volume II Factor 2: Technical Proposal | ||||
| Para 3.3.3 Subfactor 3 Transition Plan | This paragraph states "The plan shall include an overall transition strategy which includes timeframes, training, and security considerations in accordance with PWS paragraphs under section 9.14." | Can the government please clarify the Transition Plan in Subfactor 3 is only required to address the Ramp up requirements documented in PWS section 9.14.1, and not the Phase-out operations requirements. | This has been updated. The Transition Plan shall demonstrate how the offeror will accomplish an orderly phase out or change over during contract transition. | ||
| 14 | Volume III, Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal | ||||
| Para 4.5, Past Performance Questionnaire | The offeror shall send Attachment 12 - Past Performance Questionnaire to each primary customer point of contact identified on each PPIS included in Volume III. | If a CPAR exists for the Past Performance Reference, will the government accept the CPAR in lieu of a Past Performance Questionnaire? | No | ||
| 15 | 4 Volume III, Factor 3. Past Performance Proposal | The Government did not include, as with the other volumes, an organized outline for the Past Performance Volume. | Will the Government please provide an organized outline for the Past Performance Volume? | This has been included. | |
| 16 | Attachment 15 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline; Attachment 8, section 4.6 Relevant Contracts; and Attachment 9, section 5.4 Relevancy Criteria | Attachment 8, section 4.6 states: "Relevancy is defined as contracts that are similar to this effort; contract type, dollar value, complexity, and include a quality of services level meeting the requirements outlined in Attachment 15 – OPS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline...An effort must be “Relevant” in all criterion in order to be determined “Relevant” overall. | |||
| Attachment 9, section 5.4 states "In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Relevant” (as outlined in Table 4.6 of the 52.212-1 Addendum) for an effort, the recent past performance record (PPIS and Past Performance Questionnaire) must demonstrate the offeror’s past performance is relevant for each criterion in the Attachment 15 - Past Performance Relevancy Baseline." | Since it is the Government's intent to award this as a Small-Business Set-Aside contract, it should be noted that the revised draft requirement for small-businesses to meet all Attachment 15 – OPS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline items (from 4 of 7 in previous draft) restricts this effort to favoring the incumbent contractor. Will the government please consider revising this requirement to allow for more small-business competition by allowing contractors to provide contracts that meet a substantive number of the Attachment 15 relevant categories (ex. 8 of 11), as per the previous draft PWS? | The relevancy requirements have been updated. | |||
| 17 | Attachment 15 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline; Attachment 8, section 4.6 Relevant Contracts; and Attachment 9, section 5.4 Relevancy Criteria | Attachment 15 includes the requirement that relevant contracts be under a "Multiple Award/Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)" |
Attachment 8, section 4.6 states: "Relevancy is defined as contracts that are similar to this effort; contract type, dollar value, complexity, and include a quality of services level meeting the requirements outlined in Attachment 15 – OPS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline...An effort must be “Relevant” in all criterion in order to be determined “Relevant” overall.
Attachment 9, section 5.4 states "In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Relevant” (as outlined in Table 4.6 of the 52.212-1 Addendum) for an effort, the recent past performance record (PPIS and Past Performance Questionnaire) must demonstrate the offeror’s past performance is relevant for each criterion in the Attachment 15 - Past Performance Relevancy Baseline." The current requirement for small-businesses to provide IDIQ contracts with minimum value task orders will limit the participation of small-businesses. Multiple IDIQ contracts with substantive task orders are not as prevalent in small business acquisitions, especially for the same contractor. Will the Government please waive the requirement for a past performance contract to be an IDIQ to be considered Relevant?
| Alternatively, would the government consider allowing large magnitude single-award contracts over a high-dollar threshold (ex. 25M) to be considered relevant in lieu of an IDIQ contract? | The relevancy requirements have been updated. | ||
| 18 | Attachment 15 Past Performance Relevancy Baseline; Attachment 8, section 4.6 Relevant Contracts; and Attachment 9, section 5.4 Relevancy Criteria | Attachment 15 includes the requirement that relevant contracts include "Performance required in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas)" |
Attachment 8, section 4.6 states: "Relevancy is defined as contracts that are similar to this effort; contract type, dollar value, complexity, and include a quality of services level meeting the requirements outlined in Attachment 15 – OPS Past Performance Relevancy Baseline...An effort must be “Relevant” in all criterion in order to be determined “Relevant” overall.
Attachment 9, section 5.4 states "In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Relevant” (as outlined in Table 4.6 of the 52.212-1 Addendum) for an effort, the recent past performance record (PPIS and Past Performance Questionnaire) must demonstrate the offeror’s past performance is relevant for each criterion in the Attachment 15 - Past Performance Relevancy Baseline." The current requirement for small-businesses provide a contract reference in a specific state limits the competition for small businesses. A small business may be fully capable of providing quality support to the Government in multiple states, including hard-to-fill locales, yet not have performance in one of the identified states. Will the Government please revise the past performance requirement to allow for submission of contracts in states other than Utah, Arizona, or Texas?
| This requirement specific to the states in which offerors have provided services has been removed from past performance However, a requirement that resembles this has been added to the Technical Factor. This experience requirement can be met by the prime, teaming partner or major subcontractor the offeror proposes to utilize. | |||||
| 19 | Para 1.3.5 Cost or Pricing Information | ||||
| Para 5.1.4 Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments | Para 1.3.5 states “All cost or pricing data shall be addressed only in the Cost/Price proposal volume.” Yet, section 5.1.4 (regarding the Contract Documentation volume) requires offerors to submit the TEP matrix. | Please clarify the instructions regarding submittal of the TEP. | Offerors are to fill out and complete the TEP matrix, but submit it as part of Volume I. | ||
| 20 | Para 4.1 (B) (ii) Experience | ||||
| Appendix A: Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 | The evaluation criteria narrative for Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience, specifically regarding the Experience section B. ii., states “The examples must be similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity as required under this solicitation, including showing similar skillsets provided…” However, the matrix in Appendix A: Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1, under Complexity, states “Variety of Skills Sets/Labor Categories. | Will the Government please confirm that offerors will be evaluated either on variety of skills sets OR labor categories? | Offerors will be responsible for providing examples in which they managed personnel with similar skill sets fulfilling similar labor categories as those required for this effort. | ||
| 21 | Para 5 VOLUME IV, FACTOR 4: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION | The Government did not include, as with the Volumes I and II, an organized outline for the Contract Documentation Volume. | Will the Government please provide an organized outline for the Contract Documentation Volume? | This has been included. |
52.212-2 Addendum
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - July 2022 | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan & Experience | Para 4.1 (A) (ii) (a) Proposed direct labor and fringe rates (health & welfare) will be evaluated and compared against the applicable wage determinations to ensure they are not below the required minimums as outlined in paragraph 3.4.1 above. Proposed compensation below the required minimums will result in elimination of the proposal. | Since pricing information is only to be included in the Pricing Volume, can the government please clarify the expectation of proposed rates and their evaluation in this technical volume. | Paragraph 4.1 has been updated. Required minimum rates will only be evaluated as part of Volume I. The explanation of how those rates will enable the offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualitied personnel to meet PWS service requirements will be evaluated as part of Volume II. | |
| 2 | 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan & Experience | This subfactor is acceptable when the offeror provides clear examples that are relevant to the scope of work outlined in the PWS, in which the offeror has satisfactorily hired, retained, and provided support services similar to the requirements of this effort within the last seven years (from date of solicitation release), including managing logistical services, human resources, and staffing requirements for a minimum of three years as a prime contractor or a minimum of five years as a subcontractor in accordance with paragraph 1 (one) of the PWS. | To better align with the timeline of most OPS TOs, we recommend this requirement be reworded to " ... services similar to the requirements of this effort including managing logistical services, human resources, and staffing requirements for one year of performance within three years of the date of this solicitation for a prime contractor and one year of performance within five years of the date of this solicitation as a subcontractor in accordance with paragraph 1 (one) of the PWS. | The requirement within the PWS of the offeror having experience for a minimum of three years as a prime contractor or a minimum of five years as a subcontractor has not changed. | |
| 3 | Appendix A Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 | ||||
| Complexity; Performance Locations and Geographic Requirements | Performance required in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas); additionally, offeror has demonstrated the ability (through established partnering agreements or other agreements) to provide required services in Utah, Arizona and Texas | The "additional" requirements do not seem to be separate or distinct from the preliminary requirement in this section. Can the government please clarify what distinguishes "demonstrating the ability" vs having experience in the geographical areas defined? | This requirement has been updated. | ||
| 4 | Appendix A; Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1; Complexity; Performance Locations and Geographic Requirements | Acceptable Complexity for this requirements states "Performance required in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas); additionally, offeror has demonstrated the ability (through established partnering agreements or other agreements) to provide required services in Utah, Arizona and Texas." | Our understanding is the government is seeking to confirm an offeror capable of managing TOs across multiple geographic locations that aligns with the OPS MA-IDIQ. Recommend the government require one (1) past performance example within the geographic location complexity requirement of the OPS MA-IDIQ and accept other examples that demonstrate the ability to manage TOs across any geographically separated locations. | This requirement has been updated. | |
| 5 | Appendix A Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 | ||||
| Appendix A; Variety of Skill Sets/Labor Categories | Acceptable for this Complexity Requirement states "Offered 10 or more skill sets/labor categories." | Based on the current MA-IDIQ for OPS, the maximum number of LCATs on any TO requirement has been four (4). Recommend the government adjust the requirements for Technical Volume Subfactor 1 Complexity to "Offered 4 or more skill sets/labor categories." which better aligns with the current OPS execution. | This information is inaccurate. Additionally the recommendation does not account for the possibility of the issuance of multiple simultaneous Task Orders. | ||
| 6 | Appendix A:Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 and Section 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience | Section 4.1 states: "Additionally, for this subfactor to be acceptable the offeror must provide a hiring and retention plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements (see Appendix A for a full list of items for which this subfactor will be evaluated; an unacceptable rating for any item on this list will render Subfactor 1 unacceptable)" | Since it is the Government's intent to award this as a Small-Business Set-Aside contract, it should be noted that the revised draft requirement for small-businesses to meet all Appendix A evaluation items restricts this effort to favoring the incumbent contractor. Will the government please consider revising this requirement to allow for more small-business competition by allowing contractors to provide contracts that meet a substantive number of the Appendix A relevant categories (ex. 7 of 10) on Appendix A to be Acceptable? | The paragraph 4.1 requirements have been updated. | |
| 7 | Appendix A:Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 and Section 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience | Appendix A includes the requirement that Acceptable contracts be under a "Multiple Award/Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)" | |||
| Section 4.1 states: "Additionally, for this subfactor to be acceptable the offeror must provide a hiring and retention plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements (see Appendix A for a full list of items for which this subfactor will be evaluated; an unacceptable rating for any item on this list will render Subfactor 1 unacceptable)" | The current requirement for small-businesses to provide IDIQ contracts with minimum value task orders will limit the participation of small-businesses. Multiple IDIQ contracts with substantive task orders are not as prevalent in small business acquisitions, especially for the same contractor. Will the Government please waive the requirement for a contract to be an IDIQ to be considered Acceptable? |
| Alternatively, would the government consider allowing large magnitude single-award contracts over a high dollar threshold (ex. 25M) to be considered relevant in lieu of an IDIQ contract? | The paragraph 4.1 requirements have been updated. | ||||
| 8 | Appendix A:Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 and Section 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience | Appendix A includes the requirement that Acceptable contracts have "Performance required in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas)" | |||
| Section 4.1 states: "Additionally, for this subfactor to be acceptable the offeror must provide a hiring and retention plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements (see Appendix A for a full list of items for which this subfactor will be evaluated; an unacceptable rating for any item on this list will render Subfactor 1 unacceptable)" | The current requirement for small-businesses provide a contract reference in a specific state limits the competition for small businesses. A small business may be fully capable of providing quality support to the Government in multiple states, including hard-to-fill locales, yet not have performance in one of the identified states. Will the Government please revise the Appendix A requirement for Subfactor 1 to allow for submission of contracts in states other than Utah, Arizona, or Texas? | The paragraph 4.1 requirements have been updated. However, at least one example must demonstrate experience managing personnel with similar skill sets fulfilling similar labor categories as those required for this effort (see PWS Appendix D) in Utah, Arizona, or Texas. | |||
| 9 | Para 3.4.1 Direct Labor Rates, Fringe Rates, Fully Burdened Rates, and Fully Burdened Overtime Rates | Para 3.4.1 states "The offeror is responsible for classifying each skill category/reference in the TEP matrix with the appropriate job classification listed in the Wage Determinations, or for designating an exemption (if applicable)." | Will the government provide a list of labor categories designated for exemption? | No, this is the Offeror's responsibility. Please see the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Instructions tab, #4. A copy of the Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations and the Fact Sheet #17A of 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 541 have been provided for reference to help make these classifications. | |
| 10 | Para 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience | Para 4.1 states “Additionally, for this subfactor to be acceptable the offeror must provide a hiring and retention plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements (see Appendix A for a full list of items for which this subfactor will be evaluated; an unacceptable rating for any item on this list will render Subfactor 1 unacceptable).” | Can the government please confirm which rows/criteria in Appendix A: Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 apply to Subfactor 1 (A) Hiring and Retention Plan versus Subfactor 2 (B) Experience. For example, under Similarity and Scope, the Technical Factor criteria Hiring and Retention Plan regarding offerors sound management approach, appears to apply to Subfactor 1 (A) Hiring and Retention Plan. Please clarify. | The paragraph 4.1 requirements have been updated. | |
| 11 | Para 4.1 Subfactor 1: Hiring & Retention Plan and Experience | Para 4.1 states “Additionally, for this subfactor to be acceptable the offeror must provide a hiring and retention plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements (see Appendix A for a full list of items for which this subfactor will be evaluated; an unacceptable rating for any item on this list will render Subfactor 1 unacceptable).” | Can the government provide clarification regarding how the Appendix A: Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 evaluation criteria will be applied to experience examples? Will the government apply each row of the Appendix A: Technical Factor 2 Subfactor 1 evaluation criteria to each experience example individually or will some be applied across all experience examples in aggregate? | The paragraph 4.1 requirements have been updated. |
TEP
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - July 2022 | ||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 |
Solicitation (1449)
| OVERHEAD PRODUCTION SUPPORT (OPS) SERVICES FA8201-22-R-0006 - July 2022 | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Discussion | Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| 1 | Attachment 08 - FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, page 12 | If the prime offeror is a joint venture, each joint venture partner shall provide one PPI sheet conflicts with 13 C.F.R 125.8(3) states that “When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract”. | Will the government consider removing this language requiring the submission of one PPI sheet from each partner of the Mentor-Protege JV and allow the JV to collectively meet requirements related to past performance? | The specific references to Mentor-Protégé has been removed. | |
| 2 | Attachment_15_-_Past_Performance_Relevancy_Baseline. OPS Attachment 6 | Performance Locations and Geographical Requirements requires demonstrated past performance in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas) whereas the not relevant description states "Offeror does not have performance experience in multiple states or does not have performance experience in at least one of the states listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas) which conflicts with previous wording. | Will the government consider revising this language as to not restrict competition to certain states and allow offerors to demonstrate geographically dispersed past performance across multiple locations throughout the US? | This requirement has been removed from past performance. A requirement that resembles this has been added to the Technical Factor. This experience requirement can be met by the prime, teaming partner or major subcontractor the offeror proposes to utilize. | |
| 3 | Solicitation | Due Date/Time | What time zone will the due time be in? | Mountain Time. | |
| 4 | Draft Solicitation Posting | The Draft RFP Posting stated "OPS - Q and A Matrix with Government Response, has been updated." However, there was no attachment with government responses. | The "OPs - Q&A Matrix.xls" was a blank template for new questions and did not contain responses. Can the government please release responses to Questions from the June Draft Solicitation. | Yes, responses will be posted. | |
| 5 | SF1449 Block 10 NAICS/ Size Standard | The NAICS Code is 541611, while the Size Standard is $16.5M. | According to the SBA Size Standard table dated 14JUL2022, the appropriate size standard for the NAICS code 541611 is $21.5M, however the SF1449 lists it as $16.5 M. can the Government please clarify this discrepancy? | This has been updated. | |
| 6 | Attachment 15; Past Performance Baseline | ||||
| Variety of Skill Sets/Labor Categories | Acceptable for this Complexity Requirement states "Offered 10 or more skill sets/labor categories." | Based on the current MA-IDIQ for OPS, the maximum number of LCATs on any TO requirement has been four (4). Recommend the government adjust the requirements for Past Performance Relevancy Baseline Complexity to "Offered 4 or more skill sets/labor categories." which better aligns with the current OPS execution. | This information is inaccurate. Additionally the recommendation does not account for the possibility of the issuance of multiple simultaneous Task Orders. | ||
| 7 | Attachment 15; Past Performance Baseline; | ||||
| Complexity; Performance Locations and Geographic Requirements | Acceptable Complexity for this requirements states "Performance required in multiple states, including at least one state listed in the PWS (Utah, Arizona, Texas); additionally, offeror has demonstrated the ability (through established partnering agreements or other agreements) to provide required services in Utah, Arizona and Texas." | Our understanding is the government is seeking to confirm an offeror is capable of managing TOs across multiple geographic locations that aligns with the OPS MA-IDIQ. Recommend the government require one (1) past performance example within the geographic location complexity requirement of the OPS MA-IDIQ and accept other examples that demonstrate the ability to manage TOs across any geographically separated locations. | See Answer to #2 above. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .