HCaTS_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_Part_III.pdf

10/15/2015

Question Answer Per my earlier voicemail, we are uncovering significant disconnects between various J Forms and the solicitation instructions. There are also inconsistencies with each form. Of primary concern is the J.2. The issues, concerns, recommendations, and question below pertain to the J.2.

We will forward additional concerns regarding the J.5’s J.12’s and the J.3 to you in a separate email.

J.2 Proposal Checklist 1. Recommendation: Format “Top” Showing for all text cells so the complete explanation can be visible without selecting the box.

Column P's size is set to allow for ease of use of the rest of Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist).

2. Issue: Offerors are unable to submit a compliant J.2 Proposal Checklist form based on the following issues. Recommendations for these issues are included to assist the Government in corrective action to allow Industry Partners the opportunity modify their responses to this J.2 Proposal Checklist form to submit compliant responses.

a. Issue #1: The requirement for the Meaning Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCLs) is located in Volume 1, Section L.5.1.8 of the RFP and aligned with the Volume 1 Documents in the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table, however, within the J.2 Proposal Checklist the MRCLs are to be submitted within the Volume 2 documents for each of the Pool 1 and Pool 2 Relevant Experience Project (REP) Pool Documents for their individual REPs. Also, within the Pool 2 REP (particularly REP 3 and REP

4) the rows to include the file names are blacked-out and un-editable.

Recommendation #1: Remove ALL references for the MRCLs within the Volume 2 REPs (Pool 1 AND 2) of the J.2 Proposal Checklist and follow the defined organizational requirement for the MRCLs placement per the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table (particularly page 103, [Complete] Row 2) so that the MRCLs are placed within the J.2 after the (L.5.1.7) Subcontracting Plan in Volume 1. It appears this might have been the desired path taken per Amendment 01 dated September 22, 2015, however, the path was not fully executed leaving the Offeror unable to complete the J.2 document with the compliant information and alternative choices to submit the required information.

All documents that may substantiate a Relevant Experience Project are listed under Volume 2 on Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist).

HCaTS RFP Questions and Answers-Part III

b. Issue #2: The placement for the (L.3.2) Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements documents in the J.2 are inconsistent with the defined placement as stated in RFP L.4.1 Proposal Format Table, Page 104 [Complete] Row 2.

Recommendation #2: Update the J.2 Proposal Checklist by inserting a new row at the beginning of the Volume 2 documents for the Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements, for Pool 1 AND Pool 2 so that this is aligned with the defined organizational requirement per the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table, Page 104 [Complete] Row 2. Also, remove ALL references for the Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements within the Volume 2 REPs (Pool 1 AND 2).

All documents that may substantiate a Relevant Experience Project are listed under Volume 2 on Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist).

c. Issue #3: The J.2 Proposal Checklist does not allow Offerors to include the file name of the actual L.5.2.1 FPDS-NG Report for Confirmation of NAICS Codes versus completing the J.10 NAICS Code Confirmation Form; the rows within the excel file are blacked-out. Also, the placement for the NAICS Code Confirmation documentation (either the actual FPDS-NG or the J.10) is not consistent with the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table, page 105 [Complete] Row 3.

Recommendation #3: Update the J.2 Proposal Checklist by inserting a new row after the Volume 2 documents for the Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of-Name Agreements, for Pool 1 AND Pool 2 so that this is aligned with the defined organizational requirement per the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table, Page 104 [Complete] Row 2. Also, remove ALL references for the Mergers, Acquisitions, Novations, and Change-of- Name Agreements within the Volume 2 REPs (Pool 1 AND 2).

As stated in the Q&A posted in Amendment 03: "If the Offeror is not using Attachment J.10 to substantiate the Relevant Experience Project's NAICS Code, the Offeror shall use the lines below Attachment J.10 to provide the substantiating document(s)."

d. Issue #4: In the current version of the J.2 Proposal Checklist (Amendment 01 September 22, 2015) there is no place to include the J.121 Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1 and J.122 Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2 which is also inconsistent with the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table, Page 105, [Complete] Row 4, and Page 106 [Complete] Row 1.

Recommendation #4: Insert additional rows in the J.2 Proposal Checklist for the inclusion of the J.121 Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1 and J.122 Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2, before the Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) documentation, which would be compliant with the L.4.1 Proposal Format Table.

This was corrected via Amendment 03.

3. Issue: If the Government does not accept these recommendations or modify the document to correct these known issues will the Government allow Offerors to create a static pdf file of the form, overlay text boxes where required in order to meet compliance against the requirements in Section L, and submit the J.2 Proposal Checklist as a PDF?

Due to the volume and severity of the issues and discrepancies with respect to the J.2 Proposal Checklist, and given Offerors are required to submit their responses via mail in 11 days (October 16, 2015) please consider allowing yourself time to adequately review and modify the document to the betterment of a fair evaluation and fair and compliant submission by your Industry Partners

An unaltered Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) of the accepted versions in accordance with Section L.4.1 shall be submitted.

The solicitation closing date was extended to November 9, 2015 in Amendment 03.

There seems to be a computation issue with the self-scoring worksheets.

Section L.5.3.3 Relevant Experience Project Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals is not subtotaling and therefore is not accounted for in the Total Points Scored. Would GSA be willing to send out a fixed file(s) that computes correctly?

This was corrected via Amendment 03.

(2 files are attached) RFP section M.6, Point Values for Relevant Experience Projects, Past Performance Ratings and Accreditations, indicates that the maximum score is 28,450 points. However, attachments J.5.1 Self-Scoring Worksheets for Pools 1 and 2 only allow for 28,000 maximum points. The 450 points for L.5.3.3, Relevant Experience Project Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals is not adding into the total points.. As shown in the “Perfect Score” files attached, when you mark “yes” in the “Relevant Experience Project Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals” field for each REP, the 75 points shows up, but the points for each REP do not add to the total in line 83, which remains at 0. The 0 in this field does appear to be included in the total score calculation, but the score for Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals is calculated as 0. Will the government please issue amended J.5.1 Self-Scoring worksheets for Full and Open Pools 1 and 2?

This was corrected via Amendment 03.

1. The Government file containing the SF-33 includes the entire RFP.

Does the Government want that entire file back with the signed SF-33 or may the offeror remove just the SF-33 page for signature and submittal?

The entire SF33 shall be submitted.

2. Does the Government want both SF-30s signed and returned for Amendments 01 and 02, or will the signed SF-33 noting the two Amendments be sufficient, by itself?

As stated in the Q&A posted in Amendment 03: "In accordance with L.5.1.1, if any amendments to the solicitation are issued, the Offeror shall acknowledge each amendment number and date in Block 14 on the SF 33."

..This form is to be sent to the Contracting Officer...of a collection of task orders to request confirmation of task orders identified herein in fact meets the requirement se t forth in the Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) RFP…

1. Due to Base Realignment And Closure, the previous Contracting Offices no longer exist and the previous Contracting Officers either retired or moved to other agencies. Their whereabouts cannot be traced.

Question: What can be used as a substitute for this requirement when the Contracting Offices/Contracting Officers no longer exist?

In accordance with Section L.5.2 Attachment J.9 (Collection of Task Orders) shall be signed by a duly warranted Contracting Officer (or commercial equivalent Authorized Official for a Non- Federal government project) in order to ensure that the individual signing has knowledge and access to all task orders in the collection.

There is a problem with the following 2 attachments:

Attachment_J.5.1_(HCaTS_Self_Scoring_Worksheet_Pool_1)_Amendme nt_01.xlsx Attachment_J.5.2_(HCaTS_Self_Scoring_Worksheet_Pool_2)_Amendme nt_01.xlsx Issue: For both of these documents, in rows 75 – 83 for Relevant Experience Project Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals, the section does not subtotal and the points do not get included in the Total Points Scored either.

This was corrected via Amendment 03.

Reference: L.5.2.1 and J.10 NAICS Code Confirmation Form Background: The NAICS Confirmation Form requires Contracting Officers to confirm that the applicable NAICS code for a contract is other than that which they assigned at award (or in the case of a Task Order award, that which was assigned to the overarching contract). Contracting Officers have indicated concerns with this activity, as it appears an incorrect NAICS designation was assigned at award. Further complicating this action is the possibility of a post award protest for mis-classification at the proposal stage.

Question: Will a letter from the warranted Contracting Officer, stating applicability of another NAICS code be accepted in lieu of the J.10 Form?

If no, can Contracting Officers alter the wording in J.10 such that the new NAICS reference does not create the unintended consequences mentioned above?

Attachment J.10 (NAICS Code Confirmation Form) shall not be altered and no other document may be used to confirm a different NAICS Code than a Federal government Relevant Experience Project was awarded under. See Section L.5.2.1 for all methods of substatiating a NAICS Code and the order of precedence.

Reference: J.5.2._HCaTS_Self_Scoring_Worksheet_Pool_2_A03.xlsx, Self Score tab

Question: The J.5.2 Self Score tab reads “Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1 –Attachment J.5.1.” Since that area of the worksheet is protected and cannot be changed, would the Government consider releasing a corrected J.5.2 to ensure that there is no confusion as to the Pool for which the Offeror is bidding?

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

In Amendment #3, Section L.4 there are instruction similar to the OASIS RFP that states:” Nothing shall be included on the DVD+R disk except the proposal files in accordance with the instructions in Section L.5.”

For OASIS it was acceptable to include, at the top level, an electronic copy of our cover letter and a table of contents of our DVD that outlined our folders and file structure, for which its only purpose was to assist evaluators in locating evidence and other material. Will this be acceptable for the HAcTS proposal?

Yes.

All instructions set forth in HCaTS RFP Section L.5, including item 5, pertain to contracts awarded by the Federal government. Non-Federal contracts (i.e, state and local government, commercial) often do not assign a contract number. For Attachment J.6, would the government please reconsider accepting a customer response of “not applicable” for those Non-Federal contracts that do not conform to the examples under L.5 or confirm the use of an alternative identifier (i.e., contract date) in lieu of a contract numbe

If there is no contract, task order or purchase order number, "not applicable" may be entered in Section II (a).

Is the Government planning on releasing Amendment 4 with updated Attachment J2 to provide additional corrections/updates to the form? In particular:

Column F in rows 61 and 69 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

Column F in rows 97 and 105 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

Column F in rows 146 and 154 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

Column F in rows 195 and 203 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

Column F in rows 244 and 252 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

Column F in rows 311 and 319 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

Column F in rows 378 and 386 – appears to be tied together. Whatever is done one cell is automatically populated in the other cell.

The same issues above are repeated in the cells for Pool 2

Column F in rows 733, 738, and 742 – If Offerors try to check the Yes, an error message pops.

· Attn: Kimberlee Wallentine, Gail Schneider or Nasiim Lashaninejad per L.3.4 or simply to the Kimberlee per Amendment 2?

· Please confirm the exact address as L.3.4 instructs us to send to the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, GSA, Federal Acquisition Services HCaTS Program Office, with 26 Federal Plaza. Room 21-110, New York, NY 10278 address which is slightly different from the SF33.

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Camber Corporation has discovered the following issues with Attachment J.2 Proposal Checklist HCaTS A03.

1. Row 250, can’t check the box at column F because the cell is protected.

2. Rows 381 & 382, the check boxes at column F seem to be linked. If you check one box, both boxes are checked.

3. Rows 576 & 584, the check boxes at column F seem to be linked. If you check one box, both boxes are checked.

4. Rows 643 & 651, the check boxes at column F seem to be linked. If you check one box, both boxes are checked.

5. Rows 710 & 718, the check boxes at column F seem to be linked. If you check one box, both boxes are checked.

6. Row 735, can’t check the box at column F because the cell is protected.

7. Row 742, can’t check the box at column F because the cell is protected. We just wanted to bring this to your attention so an updated file could be posted.

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

In working to check the boxes in Attachment J.2, I’m running into an issue with cell F61. When I check yes in cell F61, the check box in cell F69 auto populates and will not allow me to uncheck it. We don’t have an MRCL on any of our projects, so I need to be able to uncheck F69.

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) Throughout the form, the ‘yes’ checkboxes for ‘Cost Reimbursement’ (L.5.2.4.6) and ‘Meeting or Exceeding Subcontracting Goals’ (L.5.3.3) are linked: when clicking one checkbox, the other automatically changes to ‘Yes’ as well.

Please provide a corrected version of Form J.2.

Attachment J.2 Proposal Checklist

· Row 250 (REP #4 – Past Performance Substitute Form): unable to check the box “yes” because the Excel sheet is protected

· All REP “meeting or exceeding subcontracting goals” and “cost reimbursement” rows are linked and if you check/uncheck one box the unrelated one does the same.

· Row 381 (Past Performance Rating) and 382 (PPIRS) are linked and if you check/uncheck one box the unrelated one does the same.

· Rows 481 (REP #2 PP rating) and 488 (ISR) are linked and if you check/uncheck one box the unrelated one does the same.

· Row 734 (ISO 9001:2008 Certification): unable to check the box “yes” because the Excel sheet is protected

· Row 742 (Price Worksheet): unable to check the box “yes” because the Excel sheet is protected

· Row 651 (Pool 2, REP #6): missing a check box for General Documents

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Attachment J.5.1 Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1 , Company Accreditations, Row 14 does not turn yellow when “yes” is entered in column D

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Attachment J.5.2 Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2 , Company Accreditations, Row 14 does not turn yellow when “yes” is entered in column D

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

The Attachment J.5.2 is incorrectly labeled as Pool 1 J.5.1 on the second tab.

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

I started to update our J.2 Proposal Checklist (Amend. 3 Version) and noticed that some of the white cells (i.e. input cells) are locked. Looks like some of the Accreditation cells and Price cell is locked. I am not check the “Yes” box.

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Our company is under the cognizance of the Defense Contract Management Agency(DCMA) - Divisional Administrative Contracting Officer (DACO) (FAR 42.003). FAR 42.302 rests the responsibility for adequacy determination of a contractor’s accounting system on the cognizant agency. Clause H.6.1.1 Post-Award Adequacy Determinations, appears to be in conflict with FAR 42.302(a)(12) because it states in part – “ Adequacy determinations shall be made by the HCaTS CO at its unilateral discretion after initial contract award and shall be approved prior to Contractor participation in cost reimbursement task order solicitations.”

We respectfully request clarification of Clause H.6.1.1.

Section H.6.1.1 is in compliance with and guided by FAR Clause

42.302 Contract Administration Functions. The HCaTS Contracting Officer makes the adequacy determination of the accounting systems in order to determine if the contractor is eligible for cost reimbursable work solely under HCaTS.

The RFP Attachment .2 Proposal Checklist posted with Amendment 3 contains an error in Rows 250-251, Columns F-G. The cell is password protected and offerors cannot check “yes” to confirm submission of Attachment J6 Past Performance Substitute Form. Will GSA please correct this error and provide an updated version of this form?

This has been corrected in Amendment 04

Section L.5.3.3 discusses points given for meeting or exceeding total small business goals. If a vendor is a 100% small business concern on contracts not requiring an ISR or SSR (nor the in lieu of SF294 or SF 295, respectively), is it understood that the vendor may count the points for “meeting total small business goals”? Will substantiating contractual documentation suffice to demonstrate meeting total small business goals?

An Offeror shall meet the requirements set forth in Section L.5.3.3 in order to claim points for meeting or exceeding total small business goals.

In our review we noted that the Government’s form has an error: J.5.1 – at the top of the Self Score tab it identifies the worksheet as being Pool 1 even though the cover page and file are for Pool 2.

This has been corrected in Amendment 04

Form J.2: Amendment 003

1. When the box in cell 61F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 69F. 2. When the box in cell 146F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 154F.

3. When the box in cell 195F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 208F. 4. When the box in cell 244F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 252F.

5. When the box in cell 311F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 319F. 6. When the box in cell 381F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 382F.

7. When the box in cell 378F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 386F. 8. When the box in cell 478F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 486F.

9. When the box in cell 481F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 488F. 10. When the box in cell 527F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 535F.

11. When the box in cell 576F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 584F. 12. When the box in cell 643F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 651F.

13. When the box in cell 710F is checked, the worksheet automatically checks the box in cell 718F. There is not a dependency between these items so it is possible for an Offeror to need to check one box but not the other. If the form automatically checks these blocks the Offeror may be prevented from completing the form accurately. 14. The check box in cell 250F is protected and cannot be checked. 15. The check box in cell 742F is protected and cannot be checked. Will the government be issuing a corrected form?

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Form J.5.2: Amendment 003

1. The Instruction worksheet (first tab) refers to this attachment as J.5.2, Self-Scoring Worksheet Pool 2 however, the Self Score worksheet (second tab) refers to it as J.5.1, Self-Scoring Worksheet Pool 1. Will the government be issuing a corrected form?

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

Given the recent extension to the HCaTS due date, can you please explain how GSA will handle project past performance submissions to the CPARS/PPIRS database that only become available after a vendor has already submitted a proposal but before the HCaTS closing date? For example, a firm gathers ratings using the alternative past performance process directly from their client. That firm submits a proposal using those forms and subsequently, project rating data becomes available in CPARS/PPIRS after the vendor submits their proposal but before the HCaTS closing date. Even if a vendor doesn't submit their reponse early, they must still allow a reasonable amount of time for the package to be received by GSA, which opens up a window of time where CPARS/PPIRS could be updated with new project information but the vendor would have no opportunity to modify their submission. Recommend that GSA sets a 10/15/15 cut-off for when projects must be submitted within the CPARS/PPIRS system to be included as part of HCaTS submissions.

An Offerors proposal shall be complete. If the Offeror is submitting a CPARS/PPIRS Report it shall be in the Offeror's proposal DVD+R. The Offeror shall time its submission based on having a complete proposal and solicitation closing.

Volume 1 Attachment J.2 (Amendment 003) - Row 735, Column F, L.5.4.5 - International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 9001:2008 Certification. Unable to check box - receive error message that informs you to check unprotected in review tab - when attempt you are asked for a password. Attachment J.2 (Amendment 003) - Row 738, Column F, L.5.4.6 - International Organization of Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 27001:2005 or 27001:2013 Certification. Unable to check box - receive error message that informs you to check unprotected in review tab - when attempt you are asked for a password. Attachment J.2 (Amendment 003) - Row 742, Column F, L.5.5

- Attachment J.7 Price Worksheet). Unable to check box - receive error message that informs you to check unprotected in review tab - when attempt you are asked for a password

Volume 2 Attachment J.12.2 (Amendment 001) - Project Two, KSA 2 box will not stay "checked"

In completing the J.2 Proposal Checklist HCaTS A03 file, we noted the following. Will the Government please update the J.2 Proposal Checklist HCaTS file to address the noted issues?

1. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 61, it also updates the cell in Row 69

2. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 97, it also updates the cell in Row 105

3. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 146, it also updates the cell in Row 154

4. When clicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 225, the following error message is displayed, “The cell or chart that you are trying to change is protected and therefore read-only.” “To modify a protected cell or chart, first remove protection using the Unprotect Sheet command (Review tab, Changes group). You may be prompted for a password.”

5. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 244, it also updates the cell in Row 252

6. When clicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 250, the following error message is displayed, “The cell or chart that you are trying to change is protected and therefore read-only”. “To modify a protected cell or chart, first remove protection using the Unprotect Sheet command (Review tab, Changes group). You may be prompted for a password.”

7. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 311, it also updates the cell in Row 319

8. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 378, it also updates the cell in Row 386

9. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 381, it also updates the cell in Row 382

10. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 429, it also updates the cell in Row 437

11. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 478, it also updates the cell in Row 486

12. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 481, it also updates the cell in Row 488

13. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 527, it also updates the cell in Row 535

14. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 576, it also updates the cell in Row 584

15. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 643, it also updates the cell in Row 651

16. When clicking/unclicking the “Submitted?” cell in Row 710, it also updates the cell in Row 718

17. When clicking the “Submitted?” cell in Rows 735, 738 & 742, the following error message is displayed, “The cell or chart that you are trying to change is protected and therefore read-only.” “To modify a protected cell or chart, first remove protection using the Unprotect Sheet command (Review tab, Changes group). You may be prompted for a password.”

This has been corrected in Amendment 04.

1. (Previously asked 9OCT2015 and not addressed in Amendment 3).

For the Pool 1 and Pool2 Relevant Experience Projects (REPs), would the Government prefer Offerors submit their Contractual Documents and other Substantiating Documents in their entirety or only those pages for those documents that have any highlighting or sticky notes that are used for validation and confirmation of compliance?

It is up to the Offeror to select substantiating documentation in accordance with Section L.5.2.2. The Offeror is encouraged to highlight and identify the applicable section(s) in a submitted document where an element is substantiated, in addition to using Colum P "Explanation-If Necessary".

2. To ensure consistency across all Offerors, and so Offerors have adequate time to ‘freeze’ documents for annotation and inclusion in their proposal response; request that all REP related contract documents, PIPPRS/CPARS, and ISRs/294s be those dated through the end of GFY15 (September 30, 2015).

A Relevant Experience Project may be both ongoing or completed.

The Offeror may submit any substantiating document; provided it is included in the Offerors proposal.

J.2 -- 3. The following issues/concerns pertain to the J.2 as of Amendment 3). Recommendation: Please update the form to allow Offerors to complete the form in accordance with the Section L instructions.

a. Issue #1: No ability to select “yes” checkmark in Cell F225 to indicate NAICS Code Confirmation (cell is protected)

b. Issue #2: Selecting a check mark in cell F97 (Cost Reimbursement) auto-selects the checkmark in cell F105 (Meeting or Exceeding Subcontracting Goals) as well and vise-versa. This is also true for cells F146 and F154; F195 and F203; F244 and F252; F311 and F319; F378 and F386; F429 and F437; F478 and F486; F527 and 535; F576 and F584; F643 and F651; F710 and F718.

c. Issue #3: Selecting the checkmark for “yes” in Cell F381 (Past Performance Rating) auto-selects the “yes” checkmark in cell F382 (PPIRS) and vice-versa. Selecting cell F481 (Past Performance Rating) auto-selects cell F488 (ISR);

d. Issue #4: For Pool 2 REP #3 – cells H497 through O501 are blacked out, but must be filled in by the Offeror. This is also true for cells H546 through O550

e. Issue #5: Unable to select “yes” in cell F735 (ISO 9001:2008) or F738 (ISO 27001:2013), or F742 (Price Worksheet) -- cell is protected.

This has been corrected via Amendment 04.

J.12 Relevant Experience Project Supplement Form (J.12.1 and J.12.2) [questions below were previously asked on 9OCT2015 but not addressed in Amendment 3)

4. Issue #1: Some Text Boxes are formatted as TimesNewRoman 12pt which cuts off part of the first-line text (e.g., Section II, item 4 –all 3 rows).

Recommendation #1: Please consider updating the format of these text boxes to a smaller font of TNR 10.

5. Issue #2: The formatting of the text boxes throughout the J.12.1 and J.12.2 Forms are inconsistent and cause confusion with ability to adequately edit and review of the typed and retyped content. The issues described below, in Issues 2a – 2d, are somewhat challenging to rectify by the Offerors and in light of the L.3 statement that “Offerors are prohibited from modifying, in any way, shape or form, any documents, printed or electronic, associated with this solicitation and any amendment(s) thereto unless specifically authorized to do so” we are respectfully requesting that the Government allow Offerors to modify their responses utilizing “Static Text Boxes” as described below in our recommendation.

The HCaTS team has tested the current versions of Attachments J.12.1 and J.12.2 that are posted on FBO and they are functioning correctly. Download the current version of the Attachments. The text cuts off due to character limits. The Character limitations are intentional to allow for the appropriate response.

Issue #2a: The Text Boxes that substantiate the KSA Scope Explanation and the Customization Explanation (as well as the “Where in the document(s)…..found?” boxes) do not always resize the font to ensure all text is visible. When text is entered in these boxes, during text entry, in some instances the font automatically reszies to make all text visible in the blue box. When exiting the text box, the font size remains a smaller size so that the whole of the entered text is visible. In other instances, the font size will revert to a different size upon leaving the text box and there is no visual indication to the reader that additional text is present in the box.

Issue #2 b: Even after text has been entered, upon leaving the text box, saving the file, and re-opening the file, sometimes the text box will display as being blank. However, upon placing focus on that text box, as in trying to enter text in the box, the previously entered text does become visible again.

Issue #2c: There have been other instances throughout the form where text that was edited in the box, displayed the first-entered text when focus was removed from the box (i.e., when the cursor was moved to another box). Again, when the focus was returned to the box, the edited text is visible, rather than the first-entered text.

Issue #2d: There is no distinct pattern to these observed anomalies within the text boxes. Not all boxes seem to react the same way, nor do the same issues regarding visibility of the text present themselves to all reviewers of the document.

The HCaTS team has tested the current versions of Attachments J.12.1 and J.12.2 that are posted on FBO and they are functioning correctly. Download the current version of the Attachments. The text cuts off due to character limits. The Character limitations are intentional to allow for the appropriate response.

Recommendation #2: Given this pattern of inconsistency and the associated uncertainty for the Offeror that the intended justifications are visible to the reviewer, will the Government allow the Offeror to create an additional “static” instance of the J12.1 and J12.2 Forms that overlays a textbox image on top of the blue boxes of the current forms?

The RFP attachments must be unaltered.

HCaTS RFP