ATSA-I RFP Industry Questions-Government Reponse-29OCT2024.pdf

Q# REFERENCE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 In Reference to Question 23 on the 22 Oct 2024 Questions/Responses, the Government answer states “Evidence proposed must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered. Images / screenshots do not qualify as work sample artifacts and are not acceptable” We are seeking the following clarifications:

If the original format in which the proposed evidence was in PDF format as a table or formatted and submitted as a PowerPoint, how do we insert this information so that it is acceptable within the guidelines of submitting in original format without the use of image or screenshot? In order for this to be acceptable do offerors need to extract applicable text from the original format and insert into the body of the volume with a secondary image or screenshot of the CDRL to show its original format?

The Government intends for the Offeror to extract the relevant page of the originally submitted PDF deliverable, and include that as a work sample artifact. No hyperlinks are allowed. In order to maintain the artifact in its original form, 1" margins may not be achievable. Markings required in Section L may need to be "stamped" onto the artifact.

2 In accordance with Section L II.A.a and Section L II.A.b, each page should be numbered and have margins no smaller than one inch. Can the Government provide clarification on how an artifact should be presented? If an artifact must be altered to fall within these parameters, does this count as a violation towards an artifact being submitted in the “original format as it was originally delivered”? For example, the SF 1447 (https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF1447- 22.pdf) does not meet the margin requirements if submitted in its original format. Additionally, if left in its original format, the required markings for proposal submittal would overlap text on the original artifact. The attached “Sample Artifact Original with Markings Added.pdf” gives an example of an artifact properly marked and not resized. The attached “ATSA-I Sample Page with Margins and Markings.pdf” shows a resized artifact with the proper sample markings. The Section L requirements do not appear to take into account an example such as this.

Can the Government provide clarification on how an artifact should be presented?

See Question #1 Government Response.

3 Ref: RFP Section L, L.II.C.1. A PDF table can only be inserted into the volume as an object from file, which creates a hyperlink, or inserted as an image.

Will hyperlinks be acceptable as proposed evidence or will an extracted image, in this case, be acceptable in order to be maintain margin requirements and align with the Government’s stipulation as submission in original format in which it was delivered?

See Question #1 Government Response.

ATSA-I RFP-FA8533-24-R-0002 - RFP Questions/Responses - 29 OCT 2024

4 Ref: RFP Preamble. In the RFP’s Preamble (page 4), under topic “Small Business Goals,” the RFP says that the Government intends to use the DoD’s FY23 small business goals (Subcontracting Goals) for ATSA-I. These goals are presented in this RFP Preamble section and are published online in the DoD Office of Small Business Programs' list of yearly Prime Contracting Goals and Subcontracting Goals.

<https://business.defense.gov/About/Goals-and- Performance/> Those Subcontracting Goals are as follows:

Small Business (SB): 30% Historically Under-utilized Business Zone (HUBZone): 3% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5% Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5%

The Web site further notes that the overall DoD Subcontracting Goal for FY2024 is 28.00%.

Is the Government going to provide a further breakdown of FY2024 goals by small business category or provide the DoD’s FY2025 Subcontracting Goals?

No. As stated in the RFP preamble, page 4, SMALL BUSINESS GOALS. The Government intends to utilize the latest published goals of FY23.

5 RFP Section L, L.II.D.1. Section L asks for “methods” the Offeror will use to ensure equitable opportunities for small businesses, develop subcontracting goals, and locate small businesses for subcontracting.

Can the Government define what activities might be considered “methods” for achieving these objectives? Does the Government consider each activity a distinct method or might it consider a collection of related activities to constitute one method?

No. The Government is not able to define/other information related to methods as that could be viewed as directing offerors to a specific solution.

6 RFP Section L, L.II.D.1, L.II.C.6. We understand that artifact evidence must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered. Further, we understand that Offerors may highlight sections of the Work Sample artifacts, but cannot insert text notes.

However, since the artifact evidence generally is pulled from within the original document, it may not have identifying information in the page header/footer and certainly would not have any text identifying it as substantiating evidence within the context of the ATSA-I Technical Proposal.

Therefore, would the Government allow Offerors to add a textual note at the top of artifact pages, identifying (1) the Work Sample it is associated with and (2) the Contract and CDRL it is associated with. We believe this would make for a more orderly Volume and help meet the requirement that Work Samples should be arranged such that each segment is readily identifiable.

No. The Government will not allow additional text to be added to work sample artifacts. Each work sample artifact should be discussed in the Substantiation section of its corresponding Work Sample Cover Sheet.

7 Ref: Question: Section L., II. VOLUME ORGANIZATION, A. General

a) Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number, Offeror’s name and address, the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, or III. Each volume with the proposal shall be separately tabbe and identified. Each page with a volume shall be number consecutively. Proposals shall be submitted in the English language.

According to the above paragraphs the volumes shall be marked with the RFP number, Offeror’s name and address, the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, or

III.

I’m interpreting this to mean the following delivered pdf files should be marked as shown: Note that mailing address will not be able to fit a windows file name. Can you please verify/clarify?

The Government intends for such information to be written within the volume, not in the filename. See Section L. B.1, C.1, and D.1 for volume label information.

8 Reference: FA8533-24-R-0002-0001 (Amendment 1) dated October 22, 2024 Amendment 1 to RFP FA8533-24-R-0002 included Q&As. Specifically, Question 3 indicated that questions on the RFP could be submitted up to RFP close date. As a result, hereby submits the following question: Question 21 of the Q&A document dated 26 July 2024 (copied below) advised offerors if the ATS product/services was performed as a subcontractor, the front page of the prime’s contract with the Government must be included in the work sample package.

We are able to include a copy of our contract with the prime contractor which reflects the prime’s contract number with the Government.

However, as a subcontractor, we do not have access to a copy of the prime’s contract with the Government.

If we are unable to obtain a copy from our prime contractor, would the Government accept a screenshot of the information regarding the prime contract from the Federal Procurement Data System website at www.FPDS.gov? The FPDS screenshot would show the contract number, prime company name, cage, UEI and address, among numerous other aspects of the contract. Further, if we are unable to obtain the prime contractor’s contact information for the Government Contracting Officer and Government Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative, would it be acceptable to annotate the prime’s contact information in Part II of the work sample?

No. Section L does not require the subcontractor to submit a copy of the prime's contract.

See Section L.II.C.2. "If the Offeror was a subcontractor on a contract/order for the United States Government, the offeror may only use artifacts they produced for the Prime as substantiating documentation.

However, the Work Sample Cover Sheet must be populated using information from the Prime’s contract with the Government.

In addition to the information described in RFP Attachment 1 - Section L – Instructions to Offerors, Section II.C.6, for the Substantiation section of the Work Sample Cover Sheet, the Offeror shall also explain their role on the Prime’s contract and how the Offeror provided ATS support indirectly to the Government."

No. It is not acceptable to enter the prime's contact information for the Part II: Work Sample Points of Contact.