IAFNOS_RFP_QAs_24Mar15.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA8773-15-R-8007
About this file
Q As to RFP
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 63 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Extension Request
| Reference | Question | Answer |
| Due to the staffing requirements for several hundred FTEs and the pricing requirements associated with this effort, we are requesting the Government to extend the proposal due date for Parts I, III, and IV to 4/27/15 | The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 | |
| Due to the tight response window to submit the Present /Past Performance Information into the PPI Tool and to send and receive PPQs, we are requesting the Government to extend the submission due date for Part II to 4/13/15 | PPI information due date has been extended to 8 Apr 15 | |
| Would the Government please extend the due date for proposal submissions to 27 April 2015 in order that offerors are able to have sufficient time to develop the highest quality response to the RFP requirements for this large, mission critical AF requirement? | The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 | |
| Part II - Past Performance Information 1. General - PPIs are to be submitted nlt 1:00PM CT on 30 MAR 15. Would the Government please extend this deadline by two weeks in order that teams can ensure PPIs are able to be submitted via the PPI tool and questionnaires from customers returned to 38CONS with sufficient lead time? | PPI information due date has been extended to 8 Apr 15 | |
| Past Performance: we would like to request an extension to April 13, 2015 | PPI information due date has been extended to 8 Apr 15 | |
| Remaining RFP response: we would like to request an extension to April 27, 2015 | The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 | |
| Will the government consider extending the due dates for the past performance volume and overall proposal 8 days for from the current due dates? Q&As were released on 3/17/15 and significant clarification is required in areas directly impacting our strategies and how we present our past performance. A Monday due date prohibits offerors from having an alternative delivery approach in response to unforeseen events. | PPI information due date has been extended to 8 Apr 15. The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 | |
| The planned Industry Day was cancelled and the time available to industry to respond to the solicitation was compounded by the solicitation being released earlier than anticipated. Will the government consider extending the April 13th proposal submission due date to 4 May to allow industry to provide a solution that considers all aspect of the requirements and the results of the review of documents in the reading library? | The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 | |
| We request the government to consider extending the deadline for questions to March 30, after the reading room session? | Questions due date has been extended until 30 Mar15 | |
| We request the government to consider extending the deadline for past performance questionnaire submissions to April 6, to allow cusomters ample time to respond. | PPI information due date will be extended to 8 Apr 15 | |
| Reading Room | Bidders with reading room slots the week of March 23 are at a disadvantage in not getting access to materials nearly two weeks after RFP release. Would the Government consider granting a 10-day extension to the proposal? | The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 |
| The last day to visit the reading library at Tinker AFB is 27 March and the proposal is due on 13 April and Past Performances are due by 30 March. This schedule provides insufficient time to analyze the materials reviewed in the library to determine impact of the library documents on the proposal (16 days) or the best Past Performances to utilize. Would the government please extend the Proposal due date to 04 May 2015? | The proposal due date has been changed to 27 Apr 15 | |
| 1. General. Each offeror shall submit Past Performance Information (PPI) no later than 1:00 PM CT 30 Mar 15 IAW the format contained in Attachment 6 of the RFP. | Request the Government consider a later due date for this information. Only 11 work days are provided from time of RFP release to time of delivery for the PPI database. This is an extremely tight timeline to select the past performances, coordinate them with team members, print and deliver the database back to the Government. As this is a critical part of our proposal and can determine whether we are competitive or not, we are requesting the time necessary to adequately prepare our responses. | PPI information due date will be extended to 8 Apr 15 |
| Would the government consider extending the question due date? | Questions due date has been extended until 30 Mar15 |
PWS
| Reference | Question | Answer | Actions Required |
| Reference PWS, paragraph 2.2.1.4, page 9; IAFNOS Performance Requirements Summary, and Appendix 3, ‘Workload | Question: Using the workload figures provided in Appendix 3, the resulting staffing levels to support the IAFNOS contract are significantly higher than the staffing levels of the incumbent contracts. Will the government confirm that offerors should base their proposed staffing levels solely on the Appendix 3 workload and associated Performance Requirements of the PWS? | Yes, offerors proposals should be based on information in the IAFNOS PWS. | |
| I was hoping to find out if remote support is also an option to avoid the excessive travel, lodging, and per diem the government would incur should we get the award. I understand there will be some days where we will need to travel, but have you considered the option for remote support for majority of the time. | A remote work site is not feasible as the Government shall not extend AF Networks to the offeror's remote work site. The offeror is expected to provide a labor force that is local to the sites listed in the IAFNOS PWS. | ||
| Have any of the scenarios presented in the IAFNOS solicitation (in whole or in part )been reconciled or resolved by either a contractor or the government? | Yes, the Government has dealt with similar issues presented in the scenarios. | ||
| IAFNOS PWS, Section 4.1.1 | Section 4.1.1 indicates all contractors requiring IAT I and/or IAT II access require TS/SCI clearance. This is not currently the case as IAT I/IAT II access is not relevant to TS/SCI clearance. Please clarify if the intention was to require appropriate DOD 8570 certifications for all personnel required to have IAT I/IAT II access. | The security clearance requirement for IAFNOS is SECRET. The PWS will be amended. IT-I and IT-II user levels are associated with DoDI 8500.2 and not related to DoD 8570. | Amended PWS is located in the "RFP Documents" folder on the IAFNOS SharePoint site |
| Questions and answers surrounding the maximum amounts of seats at 83 NOS and 561 NOS are inconsistent between Appendix 4 and Q&As. Please clarify the maximum contractor personnel per shift, per location. | IAFNOS PWS, Appendix 4 has the correct information. The 83 NOS can support up to 60 contractors per shift and the 561 NOS can support 40 contractors per shift. | ||
| Is there workload data or can the government review and correct the current requirements so contractors can correctly bid these requirements? | There is no additional data available othe than the workload data provided in IAFNOS PWS, Appendix 3. | ||
| From the individual business perspective the evaluation criteria appears to place too much emphasis on dollar value of contracts. Would the government consider reducing the requirement to contracts that are $6M or greater in annual revenue? | This has been reviewed and the determination is that the establish level is appropriate. | ||
| In order to ensure a competitive bid, will the government be providing the historical Contractor Man-year Equivalent (CME) for the efforts being consolidated on IAFNOS solicitation so that there is no unearned incumbent advantage | Offerors should bid based on the workload data provided in IAFNOS PWS, Appendix 3. | ||
| There does not appear to be a Performance Standard associated with the following subparagraphs as shown in the RFP dated: 3.1.1.4; 3.1.8; 3.3.1.1; 3.3.4.1; 3.5.5.3; 3.1.1.5; 3.2.1.1; 3.3.1.3; 3.3.4.2; 3.5.5.4; 3.1.1.6; 3.2.1.2; 3.3.1.4; 3.3.4.3; 3.5.5.5; 3.1.2.1; 3.2.1.3; 3.3.2.2; 3.5.3.2; 3.5.5.6;3.1.3.1; 3.2.3.1; 3.3.3.1; 3.5.4.2; 3.5.5.7; 3.1.3.2; 3.2.3.2; 3.3.3.2; 3.5.4.4; 3.5.5.8; 3.1.4.3 ;3.2.3.3; 3.3.3.3; 3.5.5.1; 3.5.47.3; 3.1.6; 3.2.3.5; 3.3.4.1; 3.5.5.2; 3.5.9; Will the government please provide the appropriate Performance Standards for the referenced sub-paragraphs? | The Performance Standards in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4 apply to the their sub-paragraphs. |
Performance Standards have been added for PWS Sections 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8. The Performance Standards in those paragraphs apply to their sub-paragraphs.
The Performance Standard for 3.1.8 is provided in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4.
Section 3.1.1.4 and 3.1.2.1, 3.1.4.3, 3.5.3.2 have Performance Standards.
There are no performance standards associated with 3.1.1.5, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.4.3, and 3.1.6 however the contractor will still be expected to accomplish all aspects of the PWS.
| Solicitation says the contractor shall follow locally approved SOPs. Can the government provide copies of those SOPs? | Approved SOPs, also referred to as Local Job Guides (LJGs), are provided for offerors in the IAFNOS Reading Room. | ||
| Do the following positions have certification requirements? Change and Incident Resolution (PWS Section 3.5.6) Automated Change and Incident Management Tools (PWS Section 3.5.7) Performance Measurement (PWS Section 3.5.8) Operating Procedures Review (PWS Section 3.5.9) Job Guidance (PWS Section 3.5.10) | The PWS Sections 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8, and Appenidx 6 is updated to show the required certifications for those sections. | ||
| Referring to PWS Paragraph 4.16, is the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) a deliverable after contract award? | The Quality Control Plan is delivered after award. | ||
| 6. Is the workload information by PWS element only that which the contract is responsible; i.e,. there are no shared Government resources performing the same functions? | Government personnel (Military and/or Civilians) also provide support to all Mission Areas defined in the IAFNOS PWS except for section 3.3.2, Messaging and Collaboration. | ||
| For any 24x7 functions, are these “seats” only being helped by contractor personnel or are those same shifts/functions being shared with military or civilian Air Force members? | Government personnel (Military and/or Civilians) also provide support to all Mission Areas defined in the IAFNOS PWS except for section 3.3.2, Messaging and Collaboration. | ||
| 8. Are there contractor maintenance tasks that need to be performed that should be called out in the workload factors? | Appendix 3 provides all expected contractor workload | ||
| 9. In Table 3.1 the Percentage of Change Request and Incident Tickets expected to be accomplished by Contractor percentages are different from what's listed in the corresponding paragraphs in the PWS. Would the Government please clarify which measures are correct? | The Perfomance Standards in sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 dealing with the completion of change requests and incident tickets is a measurement of the number of those items to complete within 30 days of their creation. For instance, in section 3.2.3, Performance Standard (a) requires the contractor to close 80% of the contractor assigned change requests and incident tickets for Boundary Operations opened within 30 days. IAFNOS PWS, Appendix 3, Table 3.1 states that contractor is responsible for 70% of the Boundary Operations change requests and incident tickets. Thus, if 100 change requests and incident tickets are opened in Boundary Operations in a 30 day period the contractor is responsible for 70 of them and required to close 56 change requests and incident tickets in 30 days. | ||
| Reference PWS Paragraph 4.4.1 Personnel Security and Reference DD254 released 17 March 15 | Ref PWS Para 4.4.1 states personnel are required to hold a TS/SCI clearance. The DD254 indicates personnel will perform at the Secret level. Question: What level of personnel clearance will individuals require to perform on this contract? | The clearance requirement for IAFNOS is SECRET. The PWS will be amended. | Amended PWS is located in the "RFP Documents" folder on the IAFNOS SharePoint site |
| Reference Section L., Section D. Part I, Subfactor 2: Transition Plan | Please complete the first sentence of this paragraph to indicate what contractor will present. | Government has added "transition plan" to the sentence | Update Section L |
| PWS 3.5.6 | Will the Govt conduct the surveys or will the offeror manage and administer the surveys? Is there a deliverable here? | This standard will be removed from the IAFNOS PWS. | Amended PWS is located in the "RFP Documents" folder on the IAFNOS SharePoint site |
| PWS 4.11.1 | What is the DIACAP/RMF categorization (MAC/CL, Confidentiality, Availability, Integrity) for each AFIN environment (NIPR/SIPR, etc.) to enable the determination of requirements for maintaining continuity of operations plans? | These categories are identified in the existing enclave accreditation packages. The maintenance of the COOP is driven by AFI. | |
| Please specify the highest clearance required at each of the six locations (Lackland, Langley, Andrews, Wright-Pat, Peterson, Scott) | SECRET is the highest clearance at all locations. | ||
| If the ESD is not part of this contract, where are help desk functions performed and where are trouble tickets generated? Are help desk functions part of this contract? | That is correct, ESD is not part of this contract. The AF is reshaping the way we perform help desk functions and the PWS reflects that change. Change requests and incident tickets are generated at multiple levels of the enterprise to include INOSC, ESU, APCs, Communication Focal Points, and users | ||
| Atch 1- PWS 4.8.1 | The Government states that "The contractor shall develop a Quality Control Plan" (QCP). Please clarify when this deliverable is due. Is it due after contract award? Or as part of our proposal submission? | The Quality Control Plan is delivered after award. | |
| 4. PWS 4.8.1 states the “CO will notify the contractor of acceptance or required modifications to the plan before the contract start.” | Is the QCP required at time of proposal submission or during the Transition Period? | The Quality Control Plan is delivered after award. | |
| Since incumbent contractors have ready access to all electronic documents in the reading room providing a competitive advantage in scenario response, and non-incumbent contractors are only granted time limited and reproduction prohibited through the reading library, would the government provide the documents in the reading library to contractors through NIPRnet access or other secure transfer medium? | would the government provide the documents in the reading library to contractors through NIPRnet access or other secure transfer medium? | The documents provided in the Reading Room are sensitive but unclassified (SBU) thus cannot be released to offerors in a way in which the documents are outside the control of the Government. Providing access through the NIPRNet or transfering the documents does not allow the Government to maintain control of the documents. | |
| DD254 states Secret Clearance, however, in the PWS paragraph 4.1.1 it states Top Secret Clearance. | Please clarify the personnel security clearance requirements for this contract. | The security clearance requirement for IAFNOS is SECRET. The PWS will be amended. | |
| 8. PWS 4.1 Individual Clearances. IAW DD Form 254. The Contractor shall obtain a U.S. security clearance at the minimum level of TS/SCI for all contractor personnel required to have access to classified information or require IT-II or IT-I level access. | Can the government clarify whether the IT-I and IT-II access refers to the 8570-01.M IAT-I and IAT-II categories? | IT-I and IT-II user levels are associated with DoDI 8500.2 and not related to DoD 8570. DoDI 8500.2 identifies the required security investigations required to obtain privileged accounts on networks. | |
| 9. PWS 3.4.1 – APC, Attachment 3 – Relevancy Matrix. PWS 3.4.1 reflects a requirement of 24 hours of on-call weekend support required for the APC. Attachment 3 reflects the number of on-call hours is expected to be 1,920 hours per year per APC. | Will the Government please clarify the on-call requirement for the APC. | The offeror is to provide a workforce that is available with one hour of notification or that is on-site for scheduled Authorized Service Interuptions during the weekends (Saturday and Sunday) at the APCs | |
| 10. PWS Section 3.2.1 INOSC states: Add and update all Infrastructure Operations controlled devices in the CMDB within 24 hours of adding or changing configuration of the device. | What is the Government using to maintain the CMDB? What tools are CMDB artifacts managed with? | The intended solution is EITSM (Remedy). The contractor will help evolve and consolidate the configuration management function. No current CMDB exists. | |
| Is the Government maintaining an enterprise CMDB or a CMDB local to each NOS/base? | The intended solution is EITSM (Remedy). The contractor will help evolve and consolidate the configuration management function. No current CMDB exists. | ||
| In accordance with PWS Section 3.1.1.3: - developing, updating, and maintaining an inventory list of equipment to include: building, floor, room, rack, row, rack units, power requirements, thermal load, work center ownership, owning organization | A CMDB is not the same as an asset inventory system. Does the Government maintain a separate asset inventory DB? What system is used for inventory management today? Are RFID tags used for inventory management of equipment? | Asset inventory is managed in the Information Technology Asset Management System (ITAMS). The inventory list in Section 3.1.1.3 is in relation to the CMDB. RFID tages are not used for inventory management. | |
| In accordance with section L, D. Part 1 – Technical Proposal it states the following: |
Using the instructions provided below, provide the actual methodology the offeror will use to accomplish/satisfy these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory.
| For subfactors 3, 4, and 5, If the offeror only answers the PWS elements applicable to the scenario, and does not address PWS elements which are not applicable, will they be deemed technically acceptable? | The technical proposal shall address the PWS in its entirety. When answering the scenarios, only the PWS elements specific to the scenario need be addressed. |
| DD254, |
PWS, 4.1.1 Personnel Security
| The DD254 indicates a requirement for a Secret facility clearance. This means that the highest level personnel clearance for this requirement is Secret, not Top Secret. Further, the PWS 4.1.1 states “The Contractor shall obtain a U.S. security clearance at the minimum level of TS/SCI for all contractor personnel required to have access to classified information or require IT-II or IT-I level access.” Please confirm this IAFNOS requirement will not require TS/SCI cleared personnel to perform work on this contract. | The security clearance requirement for IAFNOS is SECRET. The PWS will be amended. | |
| PWS, 2.3.4.2 and 2.3.4.4 | In 2.3.4.2, PWS states IAT and IAM certification needs to be current at contract start date. 2.3.4.4 indicates that the contractor can meet all certification requirements within 90 days of contract start date (less a core cadre of certified personnel sufficient to meet PWS performance requirements.). This appears to be a discrepancy. | PWS Section 2.3.4.4 is amended to provide clarity. All contractor personnel requiring DoD 8570 certifications shall have them at contractor start date. The contractor shall provide a cadre of personnel with certification to meet PWS requirements at contractor start date with all contractor personnel meeting non DoD 8570 certifications 90 days from contractor start date. |
| PWS, 4.10 | Are all contract personnel for this contract considered Essential Personnel? | PWS Section 4.10 is amended. PWS Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 3.6 are Mission Essential. |
| COOP Site | Where is/are the COOP site/s located? | COOP sites are classified. COOP sites will be provided to contractor after award, verification of security clearance, and need to know. |
| COOP Plans | Will the COOP plans be available in the Reading Room? | COOP is a classified document. The COOP will be provided to the contactor after award, verification of security clearance, and need to know. |
| PWS, section 3.5.8 | What is the tier 0 website dashboard? TIBCO? Will the government provide the dashboard architecture and integration with Remedy in the Reading Library? | The tier 0 website is the ESD Portal website. It is not TIBCO. Available documentation will be placed in the Reading Room. |
| IAFNOS Appendix 3, Table 3.2 | Does the time to close a ticket start from user/customer submission, the time from when the AFIN technician responds to the user/customer acknowledging issue receipt, or when the technician receives the work order to start resolution steps to the time the ticket is closed? I.e., what are the start and stop time boundaries for ticket resolution times? | The start time for a change request or incident ticket is submition time and date. The stop time is upon closure of the change request or incident ticket. |
| Appendix 3, Table 3-4 | AMAC Order Production stipulates an 80% expected workload distribution, however the Estimated Contractor Orders is calculated at 70%, recommend the expected workload distribution be changed to 70% and match the estimated contractor orders. | 80% is the workload factor for PWS Section 3.6.3. |
| Is the workload information by PWS element only that which the contract is responsible; i.e,. there are no shared Government resources performing the same functions? | Government personnel (Military and/or Civilians) also provide support to all Mission Areas defined in the IAFNOS PWS except for section 3.3.2, Messaging and Collaboration. |
RFP
| Reference | Question | Answer |
| Section L, General Instructions A, Para 8 - Reading Library; Attachment 8 - Reading Library Instructions | Are the new documents (Data Dictionary for the Federated Database, Change Request and Incident Ticket Risk Matrix, and Change Request Implementation Plan) going to be posted virtually for those who visited the Reading Library prior to the final release of the RFP on 13 MAR? | No, the reading library is the only location available |
| REFERENCE B. Section L, E. Part II Past Performance Information, Para 1, General; REFERENCE C. Section L, E. Part II Past Performance Information, 6. Past Performance Questionnaire | IAW REF C: The Govt states offerors will submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) directly to the Govt NLT the due date for the Past Performance Proposal Volume. IAW REF B: Past Performance Information (PPI) is due to the Govt NLT 1pm CT 30 MARCH. Is the Past Performance Proposal Volume due NLT 1pm CT 30 March? | The government has requested this early submission date, however the past performance volume must be submitted no later than the closing date |
| Section M, Para 4, Factor 2, Past Performance Information, Subpara a. Evaluation Process, (c. Performance Confidence Assessment, subpara i.) | Section M does not mention the Area Processing Center (APC) in order of evaluating confidence. However, Attachment 3 - Relevancy Matrix lists the APC after AMAC. Is the APC, in relative order of merit, the least important in evaluation? | Sec M will updated to include the APC |
| Section L, E. Part II Past Performance Information, Para 5. Quality | If a CPAR is available, does the Govt still require a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) from Govt? | The government would prefer a PPQ in addition to the CPAR |
| REFERENCE A: Section L, D. Part I Technical Proposal, Para 3, Subfactor 2, pg. 82 REFERENCE B: Section L, G. Part IV Contract Document Section, Para 1, Section L, pg. 88 | Please confirm the Govt’s intent to instruct offerors to include the full transition plan in both Part I Technical Proposal (REF A) and PART IV Contractual Documentation (REF B)? If not, will the Govt accept a reference of Part I in PART IV? | There is no reference to the transition plan in Part IV |
| Could you please provide some clarification regarding Section L-1.B.2 “The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and RFP.” and Section L-1.C.4 Cross Referencing “The offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix…indicating the PWS paragraph number and the corresponding proposal paragraph.” | Is it the Government’s intent that Part I Technical Proposal shall address only the Subfactors specified in Section L-1 and M-1, or should the proposal address both the Subfactors and the PWS in its entirety? | The technical proposal should address the PWS in its entirety; however the proposal will only be evaluated IAW Section M |
| Could you please provide some clarification regarding due dates for Past Performance Information? The solicitation specifies a 30 Mar due date. | Is this due date for just the data presented in the PPI EZ Source tool, or the entire Part II Past Performance volume? Is this a hard copy submittal or a soft copy submittal, with the hard copies following with the complete proposal package on 13 April? | The due date is for the complete Past Performance volume. |
| Response to Q&A described the government has a subjective approach to scoring past performance. | Would the government further describe/quantify how individual mission area ratings correlates to strength of confidence assessment? | All mission area ratings will be utilized to determine confidence rating; there is no specific formula |
| Please identify any contractors that were involved in the development of the IAFNOS acquisition. Are these industry companies prohibited from participating as a prime or a sub on IAFNOS? | There were no contractors involved in the IAFNOS acquisition, therefore there are no contractors prohibited from participating. | |
| Section L-1.C, Table 2 Binder Organization specifies that we are to provide 7 copies of Part II only and that we are to provide an original and 1 copy of the complete proposal package (Parts I through IV). | Section L-1.C, Table 2 Binder Organization specifies that we are to provide 7 copies of Part II only and that we are to provide an original and 1 copy of the complete proposal package (Parts I through IV). Please confirm that the Part II (Past Performance) submittals that are included in the original and Copy 1, are to be part of that complete proposal package that is due on 13 April and only the 7 stand-alone copies are to be provided on 30 March (with the EZ Source tool submittal). | Yes, that is a correct assumption |
| just a quick question will there be final Section L and M released or will be using the drafts that were posted on Feb 27th? | The documents posted on 13 Mar are the final documents. The draft watermark is removed in the amendment. | |
| In the RFP under E. PPI, 4. Recency/Relevancy, it states “Offeror shall submit PPI on no more than eight recent contracts the offeror considers most relevant…The total includes any subcontractors or team partners.” But there is no indication as to a minimum number of PPI submissions that are the prime’s own contracts. Since the prime has to perform at least 51% of the work, doesn’t the prime itself need to be evaluated by the Government on the prime’s own performance record based on its past/present performance? If so, why isn’t the prime required to submit at least some of up to eight PPIs? If not, is it not prudent for the Government to evaluate the prime’s ability to perform when the prime must perform the majority of the work? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| FAR clause 15.305(a)(2)(i) says that “Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.” In FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) it goes on to say “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” But there is no language in any of the solicitation documents that indicate a requirement for the prime offeror to submit its own past performance information. Is the WOSB prime, who has to perform the majority of the work on the contract, required to submit past performance information on their own work in order to demonstrate their “ability to perform the contract successfully” | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| We request the Government to require the prime to submit at least two (2) of the eight (8) past performance citations for contracts the prime has performed themselves that are relevant to the IAFNOS requirement. As it is written in the RFP, it appears the prime doesn’t have to submit any of the no more than eight (8) past performance citations required in the RFP. If that’s the case, how can the prime be appropriately evaluated to perform the work on their own merit? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| In the FAR, 15.305(a) states the following: “(3) Technical evaluation. When tradeoffs are performed (see 15.101-1), the source selection records shall include— (i) An assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements.” Question: How will the Government make said assessment of an offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements if the prime is not required to submit any past performance on contracts it has performed? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| In Section M-1, A. Basis for Contract Award, the Government states “The Government intends to award a single contract to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1…” FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors, 9.104-1indicates “To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must—….(c) Have a satisfactory performance record.” How will 38CONS be able to award a contract “to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1” without being able to evaluate past performance of the WOSB prime offeror’s own past performance if none is required of the prime itself? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| RFP Section L, E.4. - Regarding the number of PPIs required to be submitted – QUESTION: does this mean that a single subcontractor can submit all 8 PPIs on behalf of the bidding team with none required of the WOSB prime on its own? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| Table 2 Binder Organization |
Parts I through IV Original/Copy 1* Part I only 5 Copies Part II only 7 Copies
*Original and Copy 1 binders contain the complete proposal package. Reproduction of the Government RFP is unnecessary (and unwanted). Original proposal shall include a recordable, virus-free data compact disk (CD) which contains all parts (Parts I, II, III, and IV). CD must be secured inside CD/DVD binder storage pages (3-hole type) and secured into binder rings at the front of the Original” binder.
There are 2 copies needed for line 1 of the table.
Are lines 2 and 3 including the original and copy #1 copies - so we would provide only 3 additional Part I copies and 5 additional part II copies, or
| Are lines 2 and 3 additional copies, so that we would provide a total of 7 copies of Part I and 9 copies of Part II? | The correct total for line 2 is 7 and line 3 is 9. | ||
| The areas of interest are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. IAFNOS’ schedule is extremely tight and the 38th Contracting Squadron appreciates your written response no later than 30 March 2015. | Request the Government consider a later due date for this information. Only 11 work days are provided from time of RFP release to time of delivery for these PPI forms. This is an extremely tight timeline to select the past performances, coordinate them with team members, send them to the customer and get that data back to the Government. As this is a critical part of our proposal and can determine whether we are competitive or not, we are requesting the time necessary to adequately prepare our responses. | PPI information due date will be extended to 8 Apr 15 | |
| 1. General. Each offeror shall submit Past Performance Information (PPI) no later than 1:00 PM CT 30 Mar 15 IAW the format contained in Attachment 6 of the RFP. | |||
| "(submit EZ Source data via CD)" | Are printout copies of the PPI database required? If so, is reformatting to meet the font size and page size required or can the pages be re-produced "as is" directly from the database. | Yes, we need a printed copy and it can be re-produced "as-is" directly from the database. Also, include the information on the CD that includes the entire proposal. | |
| **The IAFNOS Labor Matrix (Attachment 9) will not be included in the page count and shall be submitted via a CD. | Will printed copies of this attachment also be required? | No printed copy is required | |
| L-1, e.1.E.4/I (FAR 52.219-14) | Can a woman-owned small business ("WOSB") offeror comply with the RFP by submitting past performance information ("PPI") on contracts ("no more than eight") performed just by its subcontractors and none by the WOSB offeror itself? If a WOSB is allowed by the RFP to submit PPI on contracts performed just by its subcontractors and none by itself, how will the past performance of the WOSB offeror who itself must perform at least 51% of the IFANOS contract be evaluated and rated? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| L-1, e.1.E.4/I (FAR 52.219-14) | FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) states that PPI is "one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully." If the WOSB offeror is allowed by the RFP to submit PPI on contracts performed just by its subcontractors and none by itself, how will the Air Force assess the "ability to perform the contract successfully" of the WOSB offeror who must perform at least 51% of the IFANOS contract? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| L.-1,e.1.E.4/M-A, B.4.a(3)/I (FAR 52.219-14) | FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. See Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act ("FASA")(41 U.S.C. 426). If the WOSB offeror is allowed by the RFP to submit PPI on contracts performed just by its subcontractors and none by itself, will the WOSB offeror be given a "not applicable" or neutral past performance rating? If not, how will the past performance of the WOSB offeror who must perform at least 51% of the IFANOS contract be rated using the performance quality/confidence assessment ratings in the RFP | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| L-1, e.1.E.4/I (FAR 52.219-14) | The response to question 40 states that RFP at section L-1, e.1.E.4 was "revised to remove the statement regarding no more than six of the twelve recent contracts." The RFP was subsequently revised to allow for "no more than eight" relevant contracts as PPI. In light of this change in the RFP, please clarify if the WOSB offeror who must perform at least 51% of the IFANOS contract may submit PPIs on contracts performed by its subcontractors but none by itself? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| L-1, e.1 | RFP states offeror shall use the PPI of Attachment 6 to include a cross reference matrix identifying PWS references and the team member proposed to support that function. If the prime has to perform 51% of the work by FAR 52.219-14, however does not include any Past Performance information, how is the evaluation completed on over 51% of the work that is not referenced to any prior ability to perform and provide the confidence rating necessary for this evaluation? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| M-1, A./L.-1,e.1.E.4 | The RFP states that award will be made to "the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1." FAR 9.104-1(c) requires that a contractor must have a satisfactory performance record IAW FAR 9.104-3(b). FAR 9.104-3(b) requires the contracting officer consider an offeror's previous contract performance. Because FAR 9.1 requires consideration of previous contract performance to determine if the WOSB offeror is responsible, will the WOSB offeror be required by the RFP to submit as PPI contracts performed by the WOSB offeror? Or can the WOSB offeror rely entirely upon contracts of its subcontractors to satisfy the FAR and RFP? | The PPI needs to be provided to represent relevancy for the prime and subcontractors in relationship to the mission areas that they specifically will perform. | |
| M-1, A./L.-1,e.1.E.4 | The IFANOS program was deemed under market research to be adequate to support a WOSB set aside action, budgeted at $254M, or $50M per year. FAR 9.104-1(a) requires the contractor to have adequate financial resources to perform the contract while FAR 9.104-1(b) requires the contractor to comply with the delivery and performance of the program with adequate resources and financial backing. How will the Air Force require the WOSB demonstrate financial responsibility? Will the Air Force require the WOSB contractor to certify financial responsibility at a set dollar amount commensurate with the IFANOS contract similar to other Air Force critical programs such as NETCENTS? | No separate certification is required | |
| In order to meet the past performance relevancy requirements in the 5 main areas (I-NOSC; ESU; APC; Ops & Msn Supt; AMAC), is the past performance of the Team the metric used to determine relevancy. i.e. relevancy requirement: provide experience in for data center hosting for more than 20,000 users. Can this requirement be met by the aggregate past performances of the team or doesn’t it have to be meant by a single past performance of one member of the team? | Each reference must meet the definition of relevant or somewhat relevant, the aggregate of the references will be used to determine the relevancy of the specific subareas, i.e. a,b or c | ||
| Section L, Para G. Part IV - Contract Document Section; Para 1 Section G – Contract Administrative Data- Please clarify or provide additional information as to what is intended by the statement,"To fulfill the requirements of this effort, some positions must be eligible for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information IAW Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 704 and Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 704.2."- Specifically, please provide answers to the following questions: What is intended by the phrase "some positions must be eligible"? How many positions? What positions must have SCI? Where are these positions located? Will the personnel filling those positions be required to have an existing SCI at the time of contract award or will they only have to be eligible for SCI at time of contract award? How many positions require a Top Secret Clearance, a Secret Clearance, or a just Unclassified positions? What is the location of the positions requiring a Top Secret clearance? | There are no TOP SECRET positions | ||
| Can the government provide additional staffing plan details by site location? The current incumbent contractors have a distinct advantage in their understanding off the associated staffing requirements. | This information is not available; the requirement is performance based and it up to the individaul contractors to determine the best solution to satisfy the governments requirement. | ||
| Will sealed pricing bids be required? | No, proposals are to be submitted | ||
| If we have a subcontractor teammate that does not meet any of the past performance criteria established in Section L/m, are they still required to submit a PPI input as per Section L Attachment 6? | If submitted it would be given a Not Relevant rating | ||
| Reference Section L; Paragraph E; Part II - Past Performance Information; subparagraph 4 states: Recency/Relevancy. Offeror shall submit PPI on no more than eight recent contracts the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. The total includes any subcontractors or teaming partners. Do not duplicate a contract reference for prime and subcontractor, but rather explain the role each played within the contract reference itself. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining how contracts are considered recent and relevant, see Section M, B.4.a 1 and 2. | Please clarify, whether Past Performance Information for each team member is provided if one or more team member(s) do(es) not have a past performance citation that meets all of the recency and relevancy criteria, yet all of the "up to eight" contract past performance citations submitted do meet the recency and relevancy criteria. Since the system to be used to submit the Past Performance Information (PPI) is an access database, and it requires that all subcontractors, teaming partners or JV members be included and that the total effort must equal 100 percent, what is the procedure for including a subcontractor or team member who has work share but either does not meet all of the contract past performance criteria, or whose past performance will not be submitted due to the number of members on the team? | Sec L.C.2 has been updated to allow for only hard copy submissions if the EZ Source database will not accept your information | |
| Will the Government be updating the final solicitation with tracked changes and incorporating the lengthy Q&A’s into the solicitation? Being that there is a cross reference matrix (CRM) required with the proposal it would be extremely complex task for all bidders to have to map in the Q&As into the CRM. It also poses a huge compliance risk for bidders as they are preparing their responses as proposals are based on responding to the final solicitation documents. | Tracked changes were not utilized, all updates referenced in the Draft RFP Q&As were incorporated in the Final RFP issued 13 Mar 15. | ||
| 2. Referring to Section L.F.7 (Downward Pricing Initiatives), if the Contractor’s efficiency is technical in nature and our downward pricing processes are described in Part I – Technical Proposal, is this narrative exclusive of the 75 page count for this proposal volume? | No, this would be included in the 75 page count since it it part of your technical solution to meet the PWS requirements | ||
| 4. Section L.E.1 (Past Performance Information) states that “It shall include a cross-reference matrix identifying the PWS references and the team member(s) proposed to perform that function.” This requirement seems out of place for a Past Performance volume. Would the Government please clarify the information required? | This information is to reflect the percentage of work proposed to be performed by each team member | ||
| 5. Section L.C.8 states “Submit electronic proposal documents in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2010, MS Office Excel 2010, and MS Office Power Point 2010, as applicable.” As some of the proposal volumes are constructed using a hybrid of MS Word, MS Excel and/or PPI tool print-outs, is it acceptable to submit electronic versions of those volumes as searchable PDF files? | This is acceptable for all documents except for the Pricing Table and Labor Matrix | ||
| Sec L-1.F.7.d(4) | The instructions for the Pricing Table specifies a Labor Rates Listing as part of that file. Should we provide that file as an additional worksheet within the Atch 2 Pricing Table or as a separate, stand-alone file? | Should be provided as a separate, stand-alone file | |
| Sec L-1.F.7.b | Professional Compensation Plan – we are required to provide salary information in the Comp Plan. Are we also required to provide subcontractor salary information? | FAR 52.222-46 states "offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract" | |
| If an offeror is a subcontractor on a program and has extensive experience working on that program for many years, and the prime contractor's annual contract value is over $8M but the Offeror's (subcontractor) annual value is below $8M - can we use the prime contractor annual value as "Relevant" criteria? | Yes, the prime contract value would be applicable | ||
| Is is correct to assume that we deliver seven copies (copies 2-8) of Part II on 3/30 and deliver the Original and Copy 1 of Part II with the rest of the proposal on 4/13? | Yes, that is a correct assumption | ||
| section D. PART 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, Subfactor 2: Transition Plan | The following sentence needs clarification: "The offeror shall present a that ensures a smooth transition and effective continuity of services between the current contracts and this effort IAW PWS requirements". Question: Does the Govt mean present a Transition Plan? Please clarify the intent of this sentence. | Yes, offeror should provide a transition | |
| 5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010) | Statement: Subsection (a) (2) states “….To avoid the prospect of the Contractor’s judgment or recommendations being influenced by its own products or capabilities, it is agreed that the Contractor is precluded for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components, and from acting as a subcontractor or consultant to a DoD supplier for the system or any of its major components. ” | ||
| Comment: Having an adequate OCI Mitigation plan in place will allow contractors to perform effectively, free from any real or perceived unfair competitive advantage in other procurements and contracts. Question: In making determinations pertaining to the above preclusion, will the Government accept an OCI mitigation plan that addresses OCI mitigation and avoidance processes to be used during contract performance? If so, please confirm the appropriate proposal volume for inclusion of such an OCI Mitigation Plan, and that the plan will be excluded from the page count. | The offeror's submitted OCI mitigation plan will be evaluated and any determination made at that time. The correct volume is Part IV and there is no page count limitation. | ||
| 5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010) - Subsection (a) (2) | Comment: If the Contractor’s / Subcontractor’s OCI mitigation plan is determined by the Government to be adequate in mitigating all potential OCI concerns and issues, please confirm that the referenced restrictions contained in subsection (a)(2) will be lifted / waived for the respective Contractor / Subcontractor. | There is not enough information available to make a determination until the OCI mitigation plan is received and evaluated. | |
| 5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010) | Comment: We respectfully request that the Government considers inserting the following highlighted edits to this clause. This inserted edit will allow the Government to make the determination of whether the Contractor’s / Subcontractor’s OCI mitigation plan is adequate in mitigating all potential OCI concerns. | ||
| “(2) Restrictions:.……The Contractor's judgment and recommendations must be objective, impartial, and independent. To avoid the prospect of the Contractor's judgment or recommendations being influenced by its own products or capabilities, except with the written consent of the Contracting Officer, it is agreed that the Contractor is precluded for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components, and from acting as a subcontractor or consultant to a DoD supplier for the system or any of its major components.” | The suggested text was not included. All determinations will be made after the OCI mitigation plan is received and evaluated. | ||
| 5352.209-9000 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCT 2010) | Comment: One of our subcontractor teammates is also a COTS provider. That subcontractor would not be involved in the recommendation of or evaluation any of commercial products as part of our team. Were this clause to be read as being so restrictive as to nonetheless preclude that subcontractors products from being subsequently considered, the subcontractor would be unlikely to be able to participate in the proposal. Question: Will the Government consider an OCI mitigation plan where a subcontractor who is also a COTS provider would be excluded from participation in any recommendation or evaluation of COTS might be sufficient so as not to exclude consideration of that subcontractor’s COTS products within the systems supported by this contract?” | There is not enough information available to make a determination until the OCI mitigation plan is received and evaluated. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .