Atch_J-2_Amd01_RFP_Questions.doc
DOC document 86 KB Posted
- Attached to
- GLOBAL CONTENT DELIVERY SERVICES (GCDS)
- Solicitation number
- HC1028-14-R-0005
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Government answers to vendor questions.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HC1028-14-R-0005_Amd01.doc | DOC document | |
| Atch_J-3_Evaluation_Table_GCDS.doc | DOC document | |
| HC1028-14-R-0005_RELEASED.doc | DOC document | |
| Atch_J-5_CLIN_Structure_GCDS.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_J-1_PWS_-_GCDS_final.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_J-7_DD254.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_J-4_QASP_-_GCDS.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_J-6_Cost_Model_Locked.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Questions on Solicitation No. HC1028-14-R-0005
| Reference |
| Questions |
| Government Response |
| 1 |
| Section I, page 25 |
| Section I includes FAR 52.209-9000 Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (OCCI), which requires offerors to identify any potential or actual OCCI. The RFP instructions at Section L do not specify in which volume of the proposal offerors should include this information. |
Two questions:
1) Should offerors include this information in Volume V Contract Documentation?
2) If not, where should offerors include this information?
Yes in Volume V under Contract Documentation.
| 2 |
| Section 2.2, page 71 |
| In the paragraph immediately preceding Table 2.2 it states “The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring loose-leaf finders as necessary” |
In table 2.2, in the first column, third row, it has “II Section L and RFP Attachment.”
Three questions:
1) Which RFP attachment is this referring to?
2) Is the Government expecting offerors to provide a hard copy submission in addition to the CD-ROM and electronic upload?
3) If the Government is expecting a hardcopy submission in addition to the electronic offers, should each volume be bound separately?
4) How many copies should offerors submit?
The statement “The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring loose-leaf finders as necessary” has been removed.
1) The RFP Attachments would include PWS & QASP.
2) Offerors should not submit hard copies of proposals.
3) No
4) 1 electronic copy is acceptable
| 3 |
| Section 2.2, page 71 |
Section 7.2.4.2, page 78 In Table 2.2 Proposal Organization, the Small Business Participation plan falls within Volume II. However in Section L.7.2.4.2, the Small business participation plan falls under “Other Information Required” within Volume V – Contract Documentation.
Please clarify which volume should contain the SB Participation (Subcontracting Plan).
L.7.2.4.2 is correct. The Small business participation plan belongs in Volume V- Contract Documentation.
| 4 |
| Section 2.2, page 71, |
Section 2.2.2.1, page 72 In table 2.2 Proposal Organization, third row, under the third column it refers to “Technical management offerings Response to PWS Template”
1) Is this referring to the “Atch_J-1_PWS_-_GCDS_final.doc” document included in the attachments?
2) If so, should we assume you would like our response within the PWS document itself?
3) If so, can we alter to template slightly to concur with the page layout standards set in section 2.2.2.1?
1) Yes vendors should reference Atch J-1 (PWS) and Atch J-4 (QASP) for technical requirements.
2) There is no PWS template, your technical solution should respond to our PWS
| 5 |
| Section L, pages 76-77 and Section J, Attachment J-6 |
| The instructions in Section L.6 require offerors to complete and submit the Attachment J-6 Cost Model. Prices for all CLINs, including Travel, are required. |
Two questions:
1) Since this is an Indefinite Quantity Contract and the actual locations are TBD, will the Government provide a plug number for Travel for pricing evaluation purposes?
2) Otherwise, what parameters should offerors use to estimate Travel for pricing evaluation purposes?
Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
Travel is reimbursable and will be IAW the JTR
| 6 |
| Section L, page 77 |
| The instructions in Section L.7.1.3 require offerors to propose a delivery schedule by “completing the blanks in Section F of the RFP. The PMO will need to put a schedule together based off of what is determined as SLINs for the Transition CLIN.” |
Section F lists the CLIN, Delivery Date, Quantity, Ship To Address, and UIC; it is not clear to us what you expect offerors to include here.
Can you please provide additional instructions regarding your actual requirements for offerors to follow?
Deliveries of equipment are placed at the delivery order. A schedule will not be determined until delivery orders can be placed.
| 7 |
| Section L, pages 79-80, and Attachment 1 PWS |
| Section L.7.3.4.7.3 states the Government has provided the list of Applicable Documents as an annex to the PWS. The PWS includes two Attachments as follows: |
· Attachment 1 Definitions and Acronyms
· Attachment 2 Facilities Rack and Power Details
Three questions:
1) Are these two Attachments considered to be the annex of Applicable Documents?
2) Is the annex complete?
3) Are there any other Applicable Documents?
The attachments to the PWS are complete.
| 8 |
| Section L, page 80 |
| Section L.7.3.4.7.3 requires offerors to submit a list of compliance documents as an annex to the proposed SOW as a separately bound document. |
Two questions:
1) Does the Government require paper copies of this document?
2) If so, how many copies are required?
The Government needs 1 electronic version of all documents submitted and pertaining to this proposal. The vendors will upload their proposals to the website via the instructions and if they want to send a backup disk that is acceptable.
| 9 |
| Section L, page 80 |
| Section L.7.3.4.7.3 requires offerors to submit a list of compliance documents as an annex to the proposed SOW as a separately bound document. |
Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a SOW in addition to the response to the Attachment 1 PWS with the proposal.
If offerors are required to prepare and submit a SOW in response to the Attachment 1 PWS, please confirm that the SOW is excluded from page restrictions specified for Volume II Technical/Management.
Typo – should read “as an annex to the proposed PWS”
| 10 |
| Section L, Attachment 5, page 88 |
| Attachment 5 presents the sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter. However, the following text appears at the bottom of the Attachment: |
“TECH REFRESH DURING BASE YEARS
All vendors are required to technically refresh a minimum of 1 time during the base 3 year period. The refresh can be at the start by providing new equipment when the award is made or anySectime before the expiration of the base period For the tech refresh, there is no direction outside of base year implementation as noted. A "new" vendor would need to bring equipment as to establish IOC and FOC (this is their one required tech refresh), there is no further requirement for tech refresh in this situation. For the incumbent, the only guidance is that this refresh would occur during the base years of the contract.”
This text appears to be misplaced or have resulted from a cut & past error. Will the Government please clarify the purpose and placement of this text in the RFP?
Text is misplaced and has been changed to Section C of the RFP.
The purpose of this statement is to make that clear that a “new” vendor is required to tech refresh existing equipment at the start of the contract. The requirement for tech refresh only exists in the base period of the contract.
| 11 |
| Section L, Attachment 1 (page 80) and Attachment 5 (page 88) |
| Attachment 5 presents the sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter. However, after the “TECH REFRESH DURING BASE YEARS” text (see previous question), there is a cite to DARS 52.215-9000 Cross Reference Matrix (DEC 2010), which seems out of place. It also seems to conflict with the Cross Reference Matrix instructions in Attachment 1. It appears that offerors should submit in accordance with the instructions for Attachment 1. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? |
| Text is misplaced and has been changed to Section C of the RFP. |
The purpose of this statement is to make that clear that a “new” vendor is required to tech refresh existing equipment at the start of the contract. The requirement for tech refresh only exists in the base period of the contract.
| 12 |
| Attachment J-1 PWS, page 27 |
| Section 12.2.1 of the PWS states: “positions requiring a minimum of final Top Secret security clearance and final IT-1 (privileged) level systems access) shall have eligibility when performance starts. Immediately upon hire the incumbents will require SCI access eligibility…” |
What positions require final Top Secret security clearance and final IT-1 at start of performance?
All positions will require final Top Secret Security Clearance and final IT-1 at the start of performance.
| 13 |
| Attachment J-5 CLIN Structure and Attachment J-6 Cost Model |
| The CLIN Structure (numbering) listed in Attachment J-5 does not match the CLINs listed in Attachment J-6 Cost Model. Will the Government please review/revise accordingly? |
| CLIN 0005 should be Transition Out |
CLIN 0006 should be Emerging Requirements
CLIN 0007 should be Surge
In order to ensure prompt submission of proposal via package service, please provide:
1) Recipient/POC name, street address, telephone number and email address;
2) any special instructions for base/facility access by package service.
Vendors shall upload a complete proposal to the DITCO web site at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/dcop not later than the time and date specified in this solicitation. . If you choose to send one for backup they can but it must match what is submitted on the web.
| 15 |
| RFP page 73 |
| In as much as submission media/formatting instructions differ at various places within the proposal, would the Government please provide a consolidated statement of submission requirement(s)? Specifically, |
Does the Government desire separate submission by CD-ROM, as indicated on RFP page 73? If so, please specify the number of CD-ROMs desired for each volume.
Vendors shall upload a complete proposal to the DITCO web site at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/dcop not later than the time and date specified in this solicitation. If you choose to send one for backup they can but it must match what is submitted on the web.
| 16 |
| RFP page 70 |
| Inasmuch as submission media/formatting instructions differ at various places within the proposal, would the Government please provide a consolidated statement of submission requirement(s)? Specifically, |
Does the Government desire separate submission by DITCO website, as indicated on RFP page 70?
Vendors shall upload a complete proposal to the DITCO web site at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/dcop not later than the time and date specified in this solicitation. . If you choose to send one for backup they can but it must match what is submitted on the web.
| 17 |
| RFP page 71 and Table 2-2 |
| Inasmuch as submission media/formatting instructions differ at various places within the proposal, would the Government please provide a consolidated statement of submission requirement(s)? Specifically, |
Does the Government desire separate submission by bound copy, as indicated on RFP page 71 and Table 2-2? If so, please specify the number of copies desired for each volume, as this data point is not included in Table 2-2.
Vendors shall upload one complete proposal to the DITCO web site at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/dcop not later than the time and date specified in this solicitation. They do not need to send CD-ROMs, 3 ring binders, or multiple copies. . If you choose to send one for backup they can but it must match what is submitted on the web.
| 18 |
| Section L |
| Section L does not provide submission instructions for the Past Performance Questionnaires. Please indicate submission date (if different from proposal submission date), required/preferred medium/media, and Contracting Officer POC information (name, telephone, fax number, email address). |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 3 states that the completed form will be submitted to Kyle.E.Martin24.civ@mail.mil On or before the due date of the propsal |
| 19 |
| RFP Table 2-2 |
| RFP Table 2-2 refers to a Client Authorization Letter, but provides no other details or instructions. Will the Government please clarify and specify this requirement? |
| Table 2-2 is referencing the required information for Past Performance submissions. Please refer to paragraph 5.1 page 75. |
| 20 |
| RFP Table 2-2 |
| Table 2-2 assigns Volume number II to two different topics: Technical/Management and Subcontracting Plan. Please clarify: are these two different volumes, or two components of the same volume? If the latter, will the Government increase the Volume II page limitations to allow for the Subcontracting Plan? |
| Volume II is incorrect. The subcontracting plan should be submitted in Volume V. |
| Will the Government please specify the proposal volume in which the Cross-Reference Matrix is to be submitted? |
| Volume 5 |
| 22 |
| Section B and Atch J-6 Cost Model |
| Section B indicates period of performance for CLINs 0002 – 0005 as Months 1-36. The cost model does not allow Offerors to input prices for Months 1-12 for CLINs 0002 – 0005. Is it the Government’s intention for CLINs 0002 – 0005 to be priced for Months 1-12? If so, will the Government unlock the appropriate cells in Atch J-6? |
| Section B of the RFP should be for a period of performance of 13-36 months for CLINs 0002-0005. |
| 23 |
| Section B and Atch J-6 Cost Model |
| CLIN 0005 in Section B is listed as Emerging Requirements. CLIN 0005 in Atch J-6 is listed as Transition Out and CLIN 0006 is listed as Emerging Requirements. Will the Government please clarify the intent of CLIN 0005? |
| CLIN 0005 should be Transition Out |
CLIN 0006 should be Emerging Requirements
CLIN 0007 should be Surge
| 24 |
| Section B CLIN 0005 Emerging Requirements |
| Will the Government provide examples/scope of anticipated projects for the Emerging Requirements CLIN? |
| Deploying GCDS on JWICS is an example of emerging requirements. |
| 25 |
| Performance Work Statement (PWS) |
| Is all tasking contained in the PWS Section 6.0 Performance Requirements to be priced into only CLINS 2, 3, and 4? |
| Yes |
| 26 |
| HC1028-14-R-005_Released .doc, Section L, ATTACHMENT II PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE, Page 85. |
| Please clarify when the Agency performing the evaluation needs to submit the completed questionnaire to Kyle.E.Martin24.civ@mail.mil. |
| Yes, all questionnaires should be submitted to the email address listed in the questionnaire on or before the due date for proposals |
| 27 |
| HC1028-14-R-005_Released .doc, Section 7.1.3. Section F-Deliveries or Performance , Page 77 |
| Section 7.1.3 states “The offeror shall propose the delivery schedule by completing the blanks in Section F of the RFP.” The Government has marked all fields in Section F – Deliveries or Performance, Page 16, with the exception of the CLIN field as N/A. Please clarify which portion of the table are suppliers to complete? |
| Deliveries are identified at the order level reference Question 6 for a delivery schedule. |
| 28 |
| RFP Page 90 of 98 52.215-9000 Cross Reference Matrix, paragraph (a) |
| 52.215-9000 Cross Reference Matrix, paragraph (a) refers to a Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS), a Statement of Objective (SOO) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), none of which are provided for under the subject Solicitation. |
Both the instructions on page 72 and on page 90 state that “If this matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix.” As the information in paragraph (a) as stated above is in error, will the Government provide an updated version Attachment L-1 Cross Reference Matrix that reflects the current PWS?
We have a PWS, the WBS, SOO, and CDRL were left in the template accidentally. The PWS is applicable and Attachment L-1 in Section L is the Cross Reference Matrix
| 29 |
| PWS 9.1.2 and 9.1.3 |
| 9.1.2: OCONUS STANDARD SITES |
DISA designated sites Outside the Continental United States with standard facilities/support found OCONUS sites.
9.1.3: OCONUS LIMITED SITES
DISA designated sites Outside the Continental United States with limited facilities/support. These sites will usually be forward operating installations.
Please define what “limited facilities/support” is and where would “forward operating installations” be located.
Sites with "limited facilities/support" are those sites where it is difficult to get touch labor support or large floor space allocations.
Forward operating installations are in theater. Their locations cannot be predicted.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .