ATSA-I RFP Industry Questions-Government Response-28OCT2024.pdf

Q# REFERENCE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Section L, Proposal Instructions, paragraph B.

Company Name uses an encrypted email and file sharing service called PreVeil. This service is end to end encrypted and CMMC + NIST compliant. It requires a recipient to sign up a for a free account once receiving and encrypted email from company name.

Would the Government agree to sign up for PreVeil, or would you prefer we use DoD

SAFE?

No, the Government will not agree to sign up for the PreVeil system. DoD SAFE shall be used as detailed in Section L, paragraph B.

2 N/A Is it acceptable to provide 2 task orders for one work sample where the work spans on one task order and follow-on task order?

No. Per Section L.II.C.2, one work sample equals one contract/order.”

3 N/A 1.) At the request of the Contracting Officer for the Work Sample, we are required to watermark all documents to indicate that it is sample documentation. Please confirm this will still be in compliant with the RFP.

2) FAR 52.209-4 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL--

GOVERNMENT TESTING (SEP 1989), 52.216-

10 INCENTIVE FEE (JUN 2011), 52.216-16

INCENTIVE PRICE REVISION--FIRM

TARGET (JAN 2022), 52.216-17 INCENTIVE

PRICE REVISION--SUCCESSIVE TARGETS

(JAN 2022), should the filled-in information be “To Be Determined at the Order Level”?

3)Will all ALT clauses related to State and local Governments, educational institutions, and other nonprofit organizations be removed for awardees who are not in those categories?

4) DFARS 252.223-7008 PROHIBITION OF

HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (JAN 2023), will this clause be exempt at the Order level if an exception in 223.7304 applies?

5) Please confirm Contractor is allowed to assert data rights at the Order level, as applicable.

1) The Government will allow the watermark if the Contracting Officer for the work sample requires the contractor to watermark all documents to indicate the document is sample documentation.

2) Confirmed.

3) No.

4)Yes

5) Yes.

4 IAW Section L.II.C.4, Volume II Technical Proposal is to be submitted as a single combined PDF. However, in Section L.II.C.6, it is stated that “evidence proposed must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered”. Our evidence/artifacts have been delivered in a variety of formats such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.

Please clarify if creating a PDF of the applicable pages of each artifact item and including it within our combined PDF volume is acceptable, rather than separately providing the applicable sections of the originally formatted deliverable.

Regardless of original file format (such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.), work sample artifacts must be converted to PDF and combined to create the single-PDF technical proposal.

ATSA-I RFP- FA8533-24-R-0002 - RFP Questions/Reponses - 28 OCT 2024

5 In reference to Volume I, Completed RFP Is it acceptable to submit the Face Cover Page (Standard Form 33) and all applicable Fill-in Clauses as one separate Attachment to Volume I?

See Question 17-ATSA-I-RFP- FA853324R0002-Industry Questions-Responses- 22OCT2024. The Government does not require the fully-issued RFP to be submitted back to the Government. The Government requires only the completed RFP sections, cover letter, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and fill-ins as applicable to be submitted.

6 Reference Question 7 of the Industry Questions with Responses dated 22OCT2024. Reference:

RFP Section L, L.II.C.2; Draft RFP Q&A #41.

Question 7: RFP Section L.II.C.2 states that “A work sample artifact represents evidence/ information/ documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample.” Draft RFP Q&A #41 (dated 26 March 2024) states that “The Government considers any official documentation that supports work experience being claimed as a Work Sample artifact (i.e.

CDRLs).”

While a deliverable to a CDRL is clearly acceptable evidence to substantiate a work sample, would the Government further allow evidence in the form of deliverables from the Government to the Contractor as official documentation to support work experience? For example, will the Government consider the following as evidence: DD Form 250 Material Inspection and Receiving Report, and/or a Government-issued Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR)? Will the Government consider other forms of Government-issued documentation as substantiating artifacts?

Government Response: No. The Government will not accept evidence of deliverables from the Government to the Contractor as official documentation to substantiate as a work sample. IAW Section L.II.C.2. A work sample artifact represents evidence / information / documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample. The Offeror needs only to include the relevant portions of artifacts from the Work Sample that clearly show the Government that the Offeror has experience in the Focus Area Categories for which points are claimed.

Regarding the response “a work sample artifact represents evidence / information / documentation submitted as a deliverable”;

Would the government consider the cover page alone of the CDRL a work sample artifact? If not, and the government only wishes to have the relevant portion of the CDRL, how does the Government wish industry to identify the artifact within Volume II and avoid confusion or being non-compliant?

Work samples shall represent contracts / orders of work performed for the United States Government. A work sample may be comprised of multiple artifacts.

A work sample artifact represents evidence / information documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample. In the substantiation section of the work sample's cover sheet, per Section L.II.C.6, "the Offeror shall identify each artifact supporting the category/categories claimed and its location within the work sample, describe what each artifact is, and explain how each is being used to substantiate the proposed self-score."

7 Reference Question #23 Section L, II.A.b Original Question #23: "Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 point."

Is it acceptable for font sizes to be smaller in the artifacts that are screen shots of actual documents?

Government Response: 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. Images / screenshots consolidated onto a single word document are considered discreetly generated documentation.

IAW Section L.II.C.3, the Government will NOT accept discretely generated documentation for the sole purpose of point validation. Discretely generated documentation is defined as documentation that is newly generated expressly for the purpose of responding to this RFP and was in no way a product of the work sample.

For Digital Model software CDRL deliverables used as Work Sample Artifacts, it is not possible to provide the actual software as an Artifact; therefore, is it acceptable to deliver a screenshot or image of the relevant portion of the delivered model? If not, request the Government provide guidance for the acceptable format for delivery of this type of digital model/CDRL as Artifacts in Volume II.

Concur.

Revised Government Response:

For Digital Model software CDRL deliverables used as Work Sample Artifacts, screenshots/images are not permitted. If an Offeror is intending to submit content from a Digital Model software system, the Offeror must zoom their model view to the relevant portion of the delivered model and export that view into PDF format, similar to the way a Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc might be converted to PDF.

The Offeror should identify, in the substantiation section of their work sample cover sheet, the modelling software used.

8 Reference: Section L – Instructions to Offerors.

Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Will the government please confirm that submittal of “the completed and signed RFP” refers only to the RFP cover page (i.e., Standard Form 33), Sections I, K, and L with the required fill-ins and not all 106 pages of

RFP FA8533-24-R-0002?

See Question/Response #17-

ATSA-I-RFP-FA853324R0002-

Industry Questions-Responses- 22OCT2024. The Government does not require the fully-issued RFP to be submitted back to the Government. The Government requires only the completed RFP sections, cover letter, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and fill-ins as applicable to be submitted.

9 Reference: Section L – Instructions to Offerors.

Volume II, Technical Proposal.

In the latest Q&A, question 23, the government addressed the question, “Is it acceptable for font sizes to be smaller in artifacts that are screenshots of actual documents?” The response was, “Evidence must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered.”

The government further clarified that “images/screenshots do not qualify as work sample artifacts.”

Reference: CUI Markings

2A. This raises a question: Given that industry standards for proposal creation recommend embedding images of evidence (such as the front cover of a contract), does the government prefer not to receive these readable images at their original size? Or does the government imply that we should embed actionable PDF files that, when extracted, contain the original images?

2B. Furthermore, please confirm our example on the following page as an extracted page from original documentation submitted as a deliverable to a CDRL to the USG?

3. As a follow up to Q&A, question 23, if we are to provide artifacts in their original format submitted to the USG, do we include CUI markings in the headers/footer as these markings will modify the original document as submitted.

2A. No. The government will not accept embedded images.

2B. N/A-Due to answer in 2A.

3. See Question/Response #1--

ATSA-I-RFP-FA853324R0002-

Industry Questions-Responses- 22OCT2024. Section L states each page should contain the Source Selection Infomation legend, at the bottom of each sheet. No other markings are required

10 Section L. 1) Section A General, states that “Offerors shall submit only one (1) proposal for the ATSA-I Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) effort as the Government will review only one proposal per Offeror.”

2) Section C Volume II Technical Proposal, Item #4, states that “Offerors shall submit their Volume II Technical Proposal as a single combined PDF which includes one (1) RFP Attachment 3 - ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix and each work sample (including its cover sheet, contract/order front page, and artifacts). As stated in the table of Section II.A, this combined Technical Proposal PDF shall not exceed 30 pages”

Does this imply multiple PDF documents are to be submitted; one PDF for Volume II, and another PDF with Volumes I and III? Or, should one PDF, referenced in Section A General, contain all three Volumes? Please clarify.

Yes, multiple PDFs are to be submitted where each PDF represents one Volume: one PDF for Volume I - Completed RFP, one PDF for Volume II - Technical Proposal, and one PDF for Volume III - Small Business Participation. See Section L.II.A:

Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes. See ATSA-I Proposal Organization.

11 RFP Section L, paragraph C. Volume II - Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content, pages 4 and 5. Question # from 10/22/24 release. Question 7 from 10/22/24 release Previous Government Response. No.

The Government will not accept evidence of deliverables from the Government to the Contractor as official documentation to substantiate as a work sample. IAW Section L.II.C.2. A work sample artifact represents evidence / information / documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample.

The Offeror needs only to include the relevant portions of artifacts from the Work Sample that clearly show the Government that the Offeror has experience in the Focus Area Categories for which points are claimed.

In light of the Government’s response on 10/22/24 to Question #7, stating that only deliverables submitted to fulfill a CDRL qualify as work sample artifacts, would the Government please clarify whether an excerpt from a Government-provided Performance Work Statement (PWS), when submitted alongside relevant supporting artifacts, can be included as part of the work sample to further demonstrate alignment with the Focus Area Categories?

Government-provided documents cannot be submitted to support Work Sample Artifacts. However, if the Offeror elects to use excerpt verbiage (text) from such documents in the Substantiation section of their Work Sample Cover Sheet(s), they may do so.

See Section L.II.C.2.6.