Section_L_Attachment_L1_-_Question_and_Answer_Template_after_AMD_0005_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 77 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ENCORE III IT Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HC1028-15-R-0030
- Issued by
- Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
ENCORE III HC1028-15-R-0030 Amendment 0006 Questions Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
ENCORE III IT Services has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
| Q&A INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of these specific instructions is to expedite the process of answering questions. Please do not change the format of this document. |
| Complete the spreadsheet tab below named "Q&A" with all questions, comments, and recommendations about the RFP. Examples provided in the spreadsheet. **Please delete the examples before submitting your questions. |
COLUMN A: Complete the "Page" column. This is the page number from the RFP located in the upper right hand corner of the page. Do not include the total page number. Enter only the page number where the topic begins.
COLUMN B: Complete the "Section/Paragraph" column with the applicable section and paragraph number (if applicable) of the RFP. For example: B2, C, or L5.1.2. For a section and paragraph number reference do not place a dot between the letter and the first number. Additional subparagraph references should be separated with a dot regardless of the format in the RFP, for example, L5.1.2.a. Do not including any other extraneous identifiers or other information other then instructed here. If the reference is to a CLIN, Clause, Appendix, or Attachment etc. the entry goes in the next column. At a minimum you will always insert at least the Section letter A through J in this column.
COLUMN C: Complete the "CLIN/Clause/Other" column. Insert the CLIN, Clause, Provision, Appendix, or Attachment number. For example: CLIN 0001, 52.217-8, Appendix A, or Attachment L3. Insert the section letter only in the Column B. This column will be completed only when there is not a more precise RFP reference number. NOTES: CLINs are in Section B. Most sections contain clauses so ensure you reference the correct section.
COLUMN D: Complete the Questions/Comments/Recommendations column. Start the question by referencing the topic. This may help the sort process. For example: Minimum Qualifications Checklist or Performance Area 10. Then insert the question or comment.
Issues must be submitted to the following e-mail address: disa.scott.ditco.mbx.encore3@mail.mil
Q&A
| RFP | |||||
| Page | RFP Section/ Paragraph | CLIN/ Clause/Appendix/Attachment/Other | Questions/Comments/Recommendations | Answer | |
| 1 | Submissions: Would Government accept new proposals and relevant information from companies who have not submitted their proposals prior to Amendement 5? | Yes | |||
| 1 | Do to the amount of rework that is required we would like to request a 3 week extension to the due date for submission of proposals. | A three week extension will be provided in Amendment 0006. | |||
| 1 | We did not submit a proposal to the original, pre-Amendment 5 solicitation (due in April). Are we eligible to submit a proposal to this re-opened solicitation? Or is this only open to those who previously submitted proposals? | Yes you may submit a proposal for the reopened solicitation. | |||
| 1 | Proposal Due Date - [The RFP specifies the proposal due date as 12:00 pm CT on September 30, 2016. We respectfully request a two-week extension (October 14, 2016) to address the following issues: changes to the technical volume necessitated by the change from "methodology" to "approach", the additional time required to produce pricing for 116 CR labor categories, the additional time required to receive and process CR labor category pricing from subcontractors, and the required time to review and ensure compliance with all other Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 changes.] | A three week extension will be provided in Amendment 0006. | |||
| 2 | Would Government consider extending the proposal deadline for small business track by two weeks to 10/13/2016? | A three week extension will be provided in Amendment 0006. | |||
| 2 | Attachment L3 | Past Performance Questionnaire Form - [Additional notes for Amendment 0005 states that, "Offerors are required to re-submit COMPLETE proposals whether or not individual documents have changed. Any documents submitted prior to Amendment 0005 (with the exception of Past Performance Questionnaires) will no longer be evaluated or referenced." Please confirm that it if contact information in the Attachment L2 Past Performance Information Sheet has changed that the new Government POC does not have to submit another past performance questionnaire.] | Offerors may initiate new Past Performance Questionnaires if new information is available. | ||
| 2 | SF30 | SF30 - [In BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE, the Government states that, "Proposals must include acknowledgement of all individual SF30 Amendments (0001 through 0005) by signing, scanning (if manually signed) and returning those documents with the submittal of section L7.1 Contract Information." Question: Does the Government intend to provide an SF30 for Amendment 0006?] | When the Government posted Amendment 0005 on the FBO website an error occurred and incorrectly marked the attachments as Amendment 0006. The website was corrected and the Attachments are now part of Amendment 0005. An Amendment 0006 will be issued with the Q&A. | ||
| 2 | SF30 | Block 14 Continuation Page "*Offerors are required to re-submit COMPLETE proposals whether or not individual documents have changed. Any documents submitted prior to Amendment 0005 (with the exception of Past Performance Questionnaires) will no longer be evaluated or referenced." [Are Offerors that did not submit an original proposal allowed to submit a new proposal? ] | Yes new offerors may submit a proposal for the reopened solicitation. | ||
| 2 | SF30 | Block 14 Continuation Pg - states "Proposals must include acknowledgment of all individual SF30 Amendments (0001 through 0005) by signing, scanning (if manually signed) and returning those documents with the submittal of section L7.1 Contract Information." FedBizOps reflects an Amendment 0006 which includes updated attachments; however there is no correlating SF30. Please advise if/how the Offeror is to acknowledge Amendment 0006 in our submission? | When the Government posted Amendment 0005 on the FBO website an error occurred and incorrectly marked the attachments as Amendment 0006. The website was corrected and the Attachments are now part of Amendment 0005. An Amendment 0006 will be issued with the Q&A. | ||
| 2 | SF30 | Block 14 Continuation Pg - states “Any documents submitted prior to Amendment 0005 (with the exception of Past Performance Questionnaires) will no longer be evaluated or referenced.” Please confirm that new Past Performance Questionnaires will be accepted if an Offeror submits revised past performance citation(s) with their proposal based on requirement changes in this amendment. | |||
| Offerors may initiate new Past Performance Questionnaires if new information is available. | |||||
| 2 | SF30 | The notes for Amendment 0005 instruct all offerors to resubmit COMPLETE proposals whether or not individual documents have changed. Can the Government please confirm that the offeror should only transmit new conformed files without showing tracked changes? | Track changes are not requested or required. | ||
| 2 | Attachment L3 | Past Performance Questionnaires. Amendment 0005 Section SF30 Block 14 Continuation Page states "*Offerors are required to re-submit COMPLETE proposals whether or not individual documents have changed. Any documents submitted prior to Amendment 0005 (with the exception of Past Performance Questionnaires) will no longer be evaluated or referenced." We interpret this to mean that Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) are not required with the resubmission, however, Amendment 0006 included Attachment L3 (PPQ form). Please provide clarification regarding submission of PPQ forms. | Submission of new Past Performance Questionnaires are not required. Offerors may initiate new Past Performance Questionnaires only if new information is available. |
When the Government posted Amendment 0005 on the FBO website an error occurred and incorrectly marked the attachments as Amendment 0006. The website was corrected and the Attachments are now part of Amendment 0005. An Amendment 0006 will be issued with the Q&A.
| 2 | SF30 | In the Amendment 5 RFP document the Government states that "Offerors are required to re-submit COMPLETE proposals whether or not individual documents have changed." Based on Amendments 5 & 6 we will likely not have any changes, however, the Government has edited or added the following documents released in Amendment 6: Section L Attachment L2 - Past Peformance Information Sheets, Section L Attachment L4 - ENCORE III Pricing Template, Section L Attachment L5 - Minimum Qualifications Checklist, Section L Attachment L7 - Executive Summary Cover Page, and Section L Attachment L8 - Past Experience Information Sheet. Are offeror's required to fill out these new attachments and submit them, or can the original documents be resubmitted without changes? | Original documents may be resubmitted without changes, however, be advised you must respond to new and revised templates. | ||
| 2 | SF 30s - The RFP states "Proposals must include acknowledgment of all individual SF30 Amendments (0001 through 0005) by signing, scanning (if manually signed) and returning those documents with the submittal of section L7.1 Contract Information." The requirement is re-stated in L7.1. Please provide the SF30s for Amendments 0001, 0002, 0004 and 0006. | Please see FBO for all SF30's. | |||
| 2 | SF 33 - The paragraph(s) beginning "The purpose of Amendment 0003…" and ending "The original questions and answers document will not be amended", would appear to have been included in error. Please confirm; otherwise please clarify. | The reference to Amendment 0003 in the Block 14 Continuation Page applies only to Amendment 0003. SF30 Amendments includes all information that was included in previous Amendments. | |||
| 2 | SF30 | The Government states that Proposals must include acknowledgement of all individual SF30 Amendments (0001 through 0005). Please confirm if the Government intends to exclude Amendment 6 from this requirement. | When the Government posted Amendment 0005 on the FBO website an error occurred and incorrectly marked the attachments as Amendment 0006. The website was corrected and the Attachments are now part of Amendment 0005. An Amendment 0006 will be issued with the Q&A. | ||
| 3 | B | Supplies or Services and Prices - Does DISA require bidders to complete the Schedule B tables with the proposal submission? If so, can DISA provide the basis of the hour estimates to be used? | No. No. | ||
| 7 | G3.d.5.ii | Work Breakdown Structure -- Please confirm that the WBS is not required for this solicitation but only after the ENCORE III contract award in response to applicable CR task order(s). | Confirmed. WBS may be required at task order level. | ||
| 14 | B1.b | Period of Performance - [Question: For pricing purposes, what is the estimated start date of the base period?] | Estimated third quarter calendar year 2017 or later | ||
| 17 | L2.3.f | General Proposal Guidance- If the Offerors business classification has changed since the original submission from a Small to a Large Business, is it necessary to notate this change anywhere in the resubmission? Or is it acceptable for the Offeror to just respond to the re-submission in accordance with its current Business Classification? | It is acceptable for offerors to just respond to the RFP with its Business Classification. | ||
| 18 | L2.4.4.c | Competitive Range - Will offerors with “Unacceptable” Technical/Management Ratings be excluded from the competitive range? | See RFP section L2.4.4.c and M1.1.3.b | ||
| 18 | L2.4.4.c | Competitive Range - Consistent with FAR 15.306(c), in limiting the number of proposals evaluated for efficient competition, will all proposals be evaluated against all evaluation criteria to determine the “most highly rated proposals” for the competitive range? | See RFP section L2.4.4.c and M1.1.3.b | ||
| 18 | L2.4.4.c | Competitive Range - Will any evaluation criteria other than Total Evaluated Price be used to establish a competitive range? | See RFP section L2.4.4.c and M1.1.3.b | ||
| 19 | L2.5.1 | Table L.2.5.1 - [Section L.2.5.1 states that, "The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table L2.5.1 below)." Can offerors also include a Title Page in each volume to include the appropriate disclosure statement?] | Offerors are not permitted to include a title page in each volume. If a disclosure statement is necessary you may provide it in Attachment L7 Executive Summary Cover Page that covers the entire solicitation. | ||
| 19 | L2.5.1 | Table L.2.5.1 - [Section L.2.5.1 states that, "The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table L2.5.1 below)." If offerors are permitted to include a Title Page in each volume with an appropriate disclosure statement, should the Title Page be a separate file or should it be included in the first file of the Volume?] | Offerors are not permitted to include a title page in each volume. If a disclosure statement is necessary you may provide it in Attachment L7 Executive Summary Cover Page that covers the entire solicitation. | ||
| 19 | L2.5.1 | Proposal Organization - [Table L.2.5.1 requires in Volume IV a copy of the uncompensated overtime policy. L.6.2.2.k and L.6.2.4, however, seem to require this document be submitted ONLY if uncompensated overtime is part of its normal accounting practices. Can we assume that L.6.2.2.k takes precedence over the general requirement in L.2.5.1?] | Table L2.5.1 will be revised to include "if applicable" after the Uncompensated Overtime Policy. | ||
| 20 | L2.5.3 | Page Size and Format - the last sentence of paragraph a. in this section says, "All proposal documents must contain the offeror's legal business name in the header of each page." Does this requirement apply to every page, including the cover letter and Government provided forms, e.g. SF33, SF30s and DD254? | It is required on all pages of the offeror's proposal except for the SF33, SF30 and DD254.. | ||
| 22 | L2.10.c | We understand that each Volume is to be packaged in a zip file. Does DISA want each of the items listed in Table L2.5.1 to be a separate PDF/Excel file within that zip file? Can we include multiple items (e.g., Table of Contents, Glossary) in the same PDF document? | Yes each of the items listed in Table L2.5.1 must be separate and no you cannot combine documents into the same PDF document. L2.10.c states: Each individual document within the zip file must be separate and complete when unzipped. | ||
| 22 | L2.10.i | Proposal Submission - The solicitation states "If the offeror needs to have a duplicate or obsolete proposal deleted before the proposal due date call the DITCO Technical Support Help Desk at 618-229-9333." Question- if offerors have previously submitted our proposal response to DITCO do we need to call and have them delete it prior to uploading our new proposal response? | Original proposals submitted in response to the original RFP (Amendment 0001 through 0004) need not be deleted. DITCO will delete all files prior to Amendment 0005 (with the exception of Past Performance Questionnaires) | ||
| 22 | L2.10.c | Zip File Requirements - [Section L2.10.c. states that, "The individual documents listed in the table of Section L2.5.1 will be zipped into five separate .zip files according to volume." Does the Government intend that each document listed for a particular volume is a separate pdf files such that for Volume II for example, the zip file would contain 4 separate files as follows: Table of Contents, Past Experience Information Sheet, Technical/Management Approach (Factor 1), and Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, instead of all of these sections being within one pdf file called Volume II_Technical-Management Approach (Factor 1)?] | Correct. | ||
| 22 | L.2.10.c | Zip File Requirements - [Section L2.10.c. states that, "Then zip the five separate volumes into a single zip file using the offeror’s legal business name and CAGE code as the file name." Please confirm that all Volumes should be zipped separately and then all volumes collectively zipped for submission.] | Confirmed. | ||
| 22 | L2.10.c | Submitting Proposals via the Worldwide Web - Please identify which documents are considered directories. If the Table of Contents for each volume is considered a directory, and it is also a component of the volume that must be put in pdf. format and zipped, please provide further instruction on how to facilitate the requirement, do not zip directories. | WINZIP has the capability to zip directories. Do not zip directories. ZIP only the files. | ||
| 23 | L4.1 | Content and Organization (Volume II) - Please confirm that offerors should be providing historical and demonstrated experience performing wwork relevant to the subfactors noted within the problem statement (per M2 and M3 respectively) vs. providing a proposed solution for the overall problem statement? | Correct. | ||
| 23 | L3 | Where is Attachment L7 and L8 located? | All the attachments are located on FBO under Amendment 0005. | ||
| 24 | L5.1.2 | Obsolete Past Performance Questionnaires - RFP Section L5.1.2 instructs Government customer POCs to complete and e-mail Attachment L3 Past Performance Questionnaires directly to Mr. Francoeur. What is the process for a bidder to have an obsolete Attachment L3 deleted? | Obsolete Past Performance Questionnaires do not need to be deleted. | ||
| 24 | L5.1.2 | In the event that a Past Performance POC chooses not to complete and return the Past Performance Questionnaire, how will our evaluation be impacted? | The proposals will not be negatively impacted if a POC chooses not to complete and return the PPQ. | ||
| 24 | L5.1.2 | Past Performance Questionnaires - [L5.1.2 shows no changes to the instructions from the original RFP in March 2016. The 7 Sep 16 FBO notice implies that previously submitted questionnaires (PPQ) do not need to be resubmitted. Will the Government confirm that offerors do not need to have their customers resubmit PPQs, assuming that nothing (e.g. POC info) has changed?] | Confirmed. | ||
| 25 | L6.1 | Price supporting documentation - L6.1 states “However, data other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a).” Is the offeror required to submit anything to provide supporting documentation in outside of the material specifically requested in section “L6.2.1 Price Narrative – Basis of Estimate” of this solicitation to satisfy this instruction? | See L6.2.2 h | ||
| 26 | L6.2.2.e | Section L6.6.2e states that offerors have to submit the labor rate buildup for FP rates. However, Section L6.2.2j states that offerors do not have to submit supporting cost information for FP rates. Additionally, the pricing template (Attachment L4) does not provide include areas for offerors to provide cost detail for FP rates. Would the Government eliminate the supporting cost information requirement in Section L6.2.2e for the FP rates? | Offerors are not required to submit supporting cost information (salary data, FPRA/FPRRs, etc.) for FP rates but such information shall be made available upon request (see L6.2.2j). However, the offerors are required, in accordance with L6.2.2e and L6.6.2j, to provide the labor rate build-up for FP rates within the Attachment L4 price template under tabs “FP Labor Rate Build (Gov Site)” and “FP Labor Rate Build (Cont Site)”. | ||
| 26 | L.6.2.2.a | Labor Rate Build-Ups - [Section L.6.2.2.a. states that, "..all offerors are required to provide fully burdened...labor rates." Please provide the assumed contract start date for labor rate build-up purposes.] | Estimated third quarter calendar year 2017 or later | ||
| 26 | L6.2.2.e | How will the CR cost associated with subcontractors be evaluated when the contractor is not required to provide a final list of subcontractors until prior to first task order proposal per H.3? Please clarify. | Subcontractor pricing is only required if it is used in the development of the proposed labor rates contained on the Labor Rate Tables. | ||
| 26 | L6.2.2.b | The referenced paragraph states that the FP/CR Labor Rate Table tab must be filled out “in accordance with the ‘Labor Category Descriptions’ included as Section J, Attachment G2.” Please clarify how this relates to the requirement in L.6.2.2.e to provide its Internal Labor Category, Years of Experience, and Educational Degree for each of the 116 Encore III Labor Categories. It should be noted that most small businesses do not have 116 internal labor categories. | Request offerors confirm they are proposing the years of experience and education IAW the labor category descriptions and provide an internal labor category if offerors are mapping to the 116 labor categories in Section J Attachment G2 if applicable. | ||
| 26 | L6.2.2.f | Cost/Price Cross-Reference Matrix - [The solicitation states that all supporting cost information shall be cross-referenced to the applicable labor category proposed. Can the government please provide further clarification on this requirement?] | All supporting cost information should be adequately labeled so the Government can easily identify which labor category the information is supporting. | ||
| 27 | L6.2.2.i | Would the Government please expound upon the requirements to submit subcontractor pricing? Are offerors required to incorporate pricing from all subcontractors? Is it the Government's intention that offerors should provide a weighting for each of the 116 labor categories for each subcontractor teammate? What if the prime does not anticipate using teammates on CPFF task orders? | 1) The offeror must include the subcontractor(s) fully burdened labor rates used in the development of the proposed labor rates contained in the Labor Rate Tables. 2) If the development of the proposed labor rate includes a composite weighting from subcontractor teammate(s), the detailed build-up must include this detail. As stated in Attachment L4 Price Template, "...Composite labor rates (i.e. blending rates from multiple internal LCATs or blending prime and subcontractor rates for a single LCAT) shall include all information used in the development of the proposed rate. Adjust as necessary to illustrate development of rates on the Labor Rate Tables on corresponding tabs. 3) Subcontractor pricing is only required if it is used in the development of the proposed labor rates in the Labor Rate Tables. | ||
| 27 | L6.2.2.i | Subcontractor Pricing - If small businesses are named as an example of teammates we can work with on task order within the small business subcontracting plan, are we required to propose labor rates for each of those named companies? | The offeror must include the subcontractor(s) fully burdened labor rates the offeror used in the development of the proposed labor rates contained in the Labor Rate Tables. | ||
| 27 | |||||
| L6.2.2.i | Attachnent L4 | Cost/Price Proposal - states "If a subcontractor relationship exists, the subcontractor fully burdened labor rates must be separately identified in the build-up of the proposed CR rate....The offer must identify the subcontractor name and type of subcontract anticipated. " |
Pricing Template - states ".... Composite labor rates (i.e. blending rates from multiple internal LCATs or blending prime and subcontractor rates for a single LCAT) ) shall include all information used in the development of the proposed rate."
| There appears to be a discrepancy between the RFP instructions and those reflected in the Pricing Template. Please clarify how the Offeror is to present the pricing if they have a large number of subcontractor team mates; as the Offeror and all subs will be providing rates for multiple labor categories. | The offeror must include the subcontractor(s) fully burdened labor rates the offeror used in the development of the proposed labor rates within the Labor Rate Table. If the development of the proposed labor rate includes a composite weighting from subcontractor teammate(s), the detailed build-up must include this detail. Adjust the "Labor Rate Build" tabs as necessary to illustrate development of rates. | ||||
| 27 | L6.2.2.j | Attachment L4 | The referenced paragraph states that “offerors are not required to submit FP supporting cost information with their initial proposal submission.” Why are columns provided for this information (i.e., Direct Labor[G], Indirect N[H-M], Profit[O]) in the FP Labor Rate Build (Gov/Cont Site) tabs of the spreadsheet? Please clarify. | Offerors are not required to submit supporting cost information (salary data, FPRA/FPRRs, etc.) for FP rates but such information shall be made available upon request (see L6.2.2j). However, the offerors are required, in accordance with L6.2.2e and L6.6.2j, to provide the labor rate build-up for FP rates within the Attachment L4 price template under tabs “FP Labor Rate Build (Gov Site)” and “FP Labor Rate Build (Cont Site)”. | |
| 27 | L.6.2.1.i | Attachment L4 | Are offerors to show subcontractors' fully burdened labor rates in Attachment L4 Pricing Template? | Yes if subcontractor rates were utilized in the development of the proposed labor rates with the Labor Rate Tables. | |
| 27 | L.6.2.1.i | Attachment L4 | If Offerors are to provide subcontractors' fully burdened labor rates in Attachment L4 Pricing Template, will the Government allow additional columns to show build ups? | Yes, the Labor Rate Build tabs are not locked to allow offerors to edit or add columns and rows as needed to show the detail of the build up to their proposed rate. | |
| 27 | L6.2.2 | Attachment L4 | Pricing Template -- Please confirm that the pricing template for (FP/CR Labor Rate Build Up tabs) can be updated to include additional columns to specify the subcontractor company names. | Yes, the Labor Rate Build tabs are not locked to allow offerors to edit or add columns and rows as needed to show the detail of the build up to their proposed rate. | |
| 30 | L.7.5 | It is DSS policy to require that an unpopulated JV have a contract award prior to applying for a facility clearance. Even if both members of an unpopulated JV have a SECRET facility clearance, DSS restricts us from moving forward until after award. Given current process delays within DSS, it is unlikely that a successful unpopulated JV will be able to obtain a security clearance within 60 days after contract award. Wouldn’t it be more useful to require a Facility Clearance 60 days after first task order award? | If DSS is making progress towards an approved clearance a waiver may be granted by the Contracting Officer to extend the 60 days. | ||
| 34 | M2.1.2 | It is stated that the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis is recognized as an Intelligence Community (IC) Agency. We have worked closely with DHS operational component Customs & Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC) and the National Targeting Centers (NTC) for passengers and cargo. We are actively engaged in the development and modernization of systems supporting intelligence and operational efforts of CBP through CBP’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) Targeting Analysis Systems Program Directorate (TASPD). Our efforts in this arena include management and analysis of CBP “big data” and its direct relationship to classified information. These efforts include working directly with the DoD CENTCOM Intelligence Community. Would this past performance be considered relevant here, given that it ties directly to intelligence and other IC agencies ? | No. See RFP Sections M2.1 and M3.1 | ||
| 34 | M2.1 | The government added the language "Proposals worded as a future technical approach without having already performed the describe experience will be found technically unacceptable." to the entire evaluation criteria. Will the government remove this for small business offers. | The sentence was removed, however, the RFP was always based on past/previous technical experience and that does not change. Proposals must be clear that the experience being described is past experience and not a future proposed approach. | ||
| 37 | M3.1 | Evaluation Factors and Subfactors - [Each Technical Subfactor has a written standard for acceptability and a specific PWS reference. Will each Techncal Subfactor be evaluated using both the PWS "shall" statements referenced in M and the technical acceptability standards defined in M?] | The subfactor language in Section M3.1 contains the information that will be evaluated. | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Section 8.1 (Evaluating Cost Realism) of The Defense Procurement Acquisition Policy (DPAP) Contract Pricing Reference Guidelines Volume 4, instructs: “DO NOT use data from one offeror’s proposal to question the realism of another offeror’s proposal. The two proposals are based on different accounting systems and may be based on entirely different technical approaches.” Given this Guideline to avoid apples-to-oranges comparisons between offerors’ cost accounting systems, will the average for each CR labor rate (as described in RFP Section M5) be computed using unburdened labor rates? | The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on the proposed CR labor rates in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the Most Probable Cost for each Offeror. | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Will an Unbalanced Pricing analysis, consistent with FAR 15.404-1(g), be performed on each offeror’s Cost Reimbursable labor rates? | Total Proposed Price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Per FAR 15.404-1(g) , will offerors who submit inadequate or no justification for rates below the standard deviation for each labor category be deemed to have Unbalanced Pricing? | If inadequate or no justification is provided by the offeror for a CR rate, the Government will adjust that CR rate to be equal to the average for purposes of calculating the Most Probable Cost for that offeror. | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Per FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), will offerors with unbalanced pricing be excluded from award? | FAR 15.404-1(g)(3) states, "an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government" | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Will offerors who submit inadequate or no justification for rates below the standard deviation for each labor category be excluded from the competitive range? | If inadequate or no justification is provided by the offeror for a CR rate, the Government will adjust that CR rate to be equal to the average for purposes of calculating the Most Probable Cost for that offeror. For information regarding the competitive range, see RFP section L2.4.4.c and M1.1.3.b | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – In the Cost Analysis evaluation, for each labor category all rates from all complete proposals in each suite are used in the mathematical average and standard deviation calculations. This could potentially include rates which are later determined by the Government to be invalid due to inadequate or no justification. Is it the Government’s intent to remove invalid rates from the averaging and standard deviation calculations? | Please see RFP M5.1 for how the standard deviation will be calculated. | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – The RFP states that “The Government considers a rate that is 1 standard deviation below the average to be a realistic rate.” Is any rate above the average considered realistic? | Please see RFP M5.1 which states, The Government expects robust competition on this effort; therefore, the Government anticipates reasonableness will be determined based on adequate price competition" | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – By what mechanism(s) will the Government determine that an offeror has unrealistically low rates? | RFP Section M5.1 describes how CR rates will be evaluated and Section M5.2 describes how fixed price rates will be evaluated | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Will offerors with unrealistically low rates be excluded from the competitive range? | See RFP section L2.4.4.c and M1.1.3.b | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost/Price Factor Cost Analysis – Will offerors with unrealistically low rates be excluded from award? | RFP Section M5.1 describes how CR rates will be evaluated and Section M5.2 describes how fixed price rates will be evaluated | ||
| 41 | M5 | Cost Analysis - In the Government's description of the statistical analysis it will use to evaluate cost realism, it says for CR labor rates more than 1 standard deviation below the average labor rate for that category, "If inadequate or no justification is provided by the offeror for that rate, the Government will adjust that rate to be equal to 1 standard deviation below the average for purposes of calculating the Most Probable Cost for that offeror." This method adjusts the unsupported labor rates to the minimum acceptable labor rate and therefore, is an incentive to intentionally propose all labor categories at rates significantly below realistic amounts and achieve a favorably low Most Probable Cost. Would the Government consider revising the adjustment of unsupported rates to the Average for the labor category or 1 deviation above the Average to dissuade offerors from intentionally proposing unrealistic labor rates? | The RFP was revised. Please see RFP revision in Section M5 | ||
| 41 | M5 | Please clarify the distinction in evaluation and use between FP and CR labor rates. Fixed Price task orders are by definition based on the delivery of a product or service for a fixed price. It is unclear how a Fixed Price Labor rate will be “used as ceiling labor rates for pricing of all labor proposed under future fixed priced task orders issued under this ID/IQ contract.” Fixed Price Labor rates are conventionally associated with Fixed Price LOE or Time and Materials contract types. Cost Reimbursable direct labor rates are based on the actual cost of direct labor at the time of task order execution. Using this as an evaluation tool at time of ID/IQ submission is at best a game of estimation. Note: GSA in its recent Alliant 2 Small Business GWAC stated they “will only establish maximum rates for T&M/LH task orders/CLINs, therefore, the proposed ceiling rates do not apply to fixed price or cost-reimbursement type task orders.” | The FP and CR labor rates will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404 as stated in M5. Please see RFP Section B2 and G3(d)(5)(i) for task order procedures for fixed priced proposals | ||
| 41 | M5 | Balanced Pricing - [The government deleted language in the Amendment 0005 solicitation that stated proposals would be rejected if there was a "lack of balance in proposed pricing". Does this mean the Government believes unbalanced pricing is an ACCEPTABLE risk, and therefore NO evaluation will be conducted to determine if proposed labor rates are balanced?] | Please see RFP Section M5.1 and M5.2, which advises that both CR and FP rates "will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404." | ||
| 42 | M5 | The solicitation states that the Government will perform a cost realism analysis by calculating the average labor rate and standard deviation for each labor category. Additionally, the solicitation states that the Government will perform a most probable cost adjustment to offerors labor rates. Will the Government perform a most probable cost adjustment prior to the calculation of the average and standard deviation if offerors' submitted cost buildup is not realistic? | Please see RFP Section M5.1 which describes how CR rates will be evaluated. Specifically, the RFP states, "The following analysis will be performed by the cost/price team independently for the Full and Open and for the Small Business suites to determine cost realism: |
The cost/price team will develop an average for each CR labor rate utilizing the proposed CR rates on the “CR Labor Rate Table” tab from ALL complete proposals within each suite (Full and Open and Small Business)."
| 42 | M5 | Will the Government confirm that only submitted price proposals for the Full and Open suite will be used to calculate the average and standard deviation for the CP labor rates for the Full and Open evaluation? | Confirmed | |
| 42 | M5 | Is the Government going to perform a cost analysis of the labor rate detail on each CP labor rate submitted by offerors? | Yes. See RFP revision in M5.1. | |
| 42 | M5 | Fixed Price Analysis - This section says, "the Government reserves the right, but is not obligated to, to conduct a realism analysis of the offeror's proposed price." Since the Government is evaluating realism of the CR labor rates, will the Government compare the offeror's proposed CR labor rates and Fixed Price labor rates for the same categories to evaluate the realism of the Fixed Priced rates? | Total Proposed Price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 | |
| 42 | M5 | Fixed Price Analysis - This section says, "the Government reserves the right, but is not obligated to, to conduct a realism analysis of the offeror's proposed price." If the Government performs such a realism analysis of an offeror's price how will you evaluate the realism of their price and what is the potential impact to the offeror's evaluation if their price is determined not to be realistic? | Total Proposed Price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 | |
| 42 | M5 | Fixed Price Analysis - [The solicitation states that "In Fixed Price proposal, the Government reserves the right to to conduct a realism analysis of the proposed price." If one or more fixed-price rate(s) is determined to be outside of the realistic range, can the government please clarify how the rate(s) will be adjusted?] | IAW FAR 15.404-1(d) if a realism analysis is performed "the offered price shall not be adjusted as a result of the analysis." | |
| 43 | L6.2.1 | Table of Contents -- Isn't the Table of Contents not applicable for Price Narrative? In Table L2.5.1, the Proposal Organization section shows the deletion of "Table of Contents" for Volume IV. However, under paragraph L6.2.1 Price Narrative, there is a reference for a Table of Contents for the Price Narrative. | A Table of contents is not required for the Price/Cost Volume, however offerors shall include a Table of Contents for the Price Narrative. See RFP revision in L2.8. | |
| 44 | L6.2.1 | Basis of Estimates -- In Table L2.5.1, the Proposal Organization does not reference this item. Please clarify what Gov't is requesting as other information. Since a basis of estimates is needed on applicable CR-based task orders, this requirement should be deleted. | The pricing methodology and supporting cost information shall be included in the Price Narrative which is part of the Cost/Price Volume. See L6.2.2h for details regarding the pricing methodology and supporting cost information. | |
| 45 | C9 | Please provide the IT certifications requirements for each relevant ENCORE III IT related labor category per DoDD 8140.01, Cyberspace Workforce Management, August 11, 2015. | Cyberspace workforce qualification requirements and work roles will be determined at the Task Order level. | |
| 45 | C8 | Period of Performance - For purposes of pricing, what should offerors use as the Period of Performance start date of this contract? | Estimated third quarter calendar year 2017 or later | |
| 68 | G3.d.5.v | Sealed Packages - Please confirm that sealed packages are required from our subcontractors. | The referenced RFP section applies to Task Order Procedures only. | |
| 68 | G3.d.5.v | Sealed Packages - If these are required to be provided for subcontractors, we request a two-week extension to the current proposal due date of September 30, 2016 to allow adequate time to obtain these to satisfy a new requirement. | The referenced RFP section applies to Task Order Procedures only. | |
| 100 | I | 52.237-9000 | Are offerors required to fill in the KEY PERSONNEL clause? | Yes. |
| 111 | K | "(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541519." [The NAICS code for this RFP appears to be 541519 (page 111), but it is not clear whether the government is invoking the IT VAR exception to the revenue based size standard that exists under 541519, where an IT VAR submitting a bid is small if it has under 150 employees. Can the Government please clarify whether it is invoking that 541519 exception for IT VAR bidders or not? ] | The exception is not being invoked, the NAICS code is 541519 and the small business size standard is $27.5M. | |
| 122 | L2.0 | General Instructions - The general instructions were updated to include "affiliate or subsidiary" of which experience or past performance will not be recognized. Section M4.1, Past Performance Evaluation, was amended to include "Subcontractors, affiliates and subsidiaries are not recognized as member of the CTA, unless it is formally designates as a member of a Joint Venture Teaming Arrangement or Partnership." Amendment 0005 information released on FBO states that "Any documents submitted prior to Amendment 0005 (with the exception of PPQs) will no longer be evaluated or referenced." These section updates conflict in that Section M limits past performance references to CTAs and/or Joint Ventures to named members of said CTA and/or Joint Venture while the general instructions do not. Is it the Government's intent for the general instructions to limit the experience or past performance for affiliates and subsidiaries to CTAs and/or Joint Ventures only, unless specifically identified as a member? We assume this is what the Government intended given that CTAs and/or Joint Venture contract performance is limited to those named entities. | The RFP was amended to provide specific provisions regarding subsidiaries and affiliates | |
| 122 | L2.0 | The RFP states "For the purpose of this solicitation, an offeror is defined as a prime contractor or Joint Venture Teaming Arrangement. No subcontractor, affiliate, or subsidiary experience or past performance will be recognized. Each offeror, identified by a distinct CAGE code, may submit only one proposal against a suite of contracts subject to the restrictions of section L2.3(f). |
| Will the government consider removing the new requirement that subsidiary experience or past performance will not be recognized? Wholly owned subsidiaries are not subcontractors or affiliate businesses, but operate under the prime’s business structure and are typically considered part of that business from a delivery and performance perspective. The additional limitation may result in reduced fair and open competition. | The RFP was amended to provide specific provisions regarding subsidiaries and affiliates | ||
| 122 | L2.0 | Amendment 5 of the RFP added "affiliate, or subsidiary" to this paragraph "For the purpose of this solicitation, an offeror is defined as a prime contractor or Joint Venture Teaming Arrangement. No subcontractor, affiliate, or subsidiary experience or past performance will be recognized. Each offeror, identified by a distinct CAGE code, may submit only one proposal against a suite of contracts subject to the restrictions of section L2.3(f). |
| By adding this new requirement, new Past Performance submissions and questionnaires will need to be completed by offerors who used affiliates or subsidiary data in the original submission, as well as re-writes of Performance Areas within the Technical Proposal. If the government maintains the requirement of not recognizing subsidiary experience or past performance, we request an additional three weeks for proposal submission extending the due date to 21 October. | The RFP was amended to provide specific provisions regarding subsidiaries and affiliates. | ||
| 122 | L2.0 | With regard to the additional requirement listed in section L2.0 stating "No subcontractor, affiliate, or subsidiary experience or past performance will be recognized." |
Will the Government consider releasing a bidder from the revised requirement to the extent that the bidder can demonstrate a firm commitment on behalf of the bidder and its affiliated company to have the affiliate perform a significant portion of the work?
This would be in the government’s best interest and would give the government the advantage of greater insight into the past performance of a primary/ significant contributor to the effort. It would also provide better information for an informed decision by the Government. In addition, the changed requirement could put a bidder at a disadvantage or cause it to be graded lower, not based on its ability to perform, but rather based solely on its corporate structure.
| The RFP was amended to provide specific provisions regarding subsidiaries and affiliates | ||
| 122 | L2.0 | With regard to the additional requirement listed in section L2.0 stating "No subcontractor, affiliate, or subsidiary experience or past performance will be recognized." |
| What is the governments intended purpose in including the additional limitation on sources of past performance (affiliate, or subsidiary)? | The RFP was amended to provide specific provisions regarding subsidiaries and affiliates | |||
| 123 | L2.3.d | Requirement states that "The offeror shall make a clear statement in block 12 of the cover page to the SF33 and Volume I cover page (Section L, Attachment L7) that the proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from the proposal due date." However, Attachment L7, item "x" states "Confirmation offeror's proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from September 7, 2016." The proposal due date is September 30, 2016 so there is a 23 day discrepancy between these two requirements. Please correct the discrepancy. | Will be corrected with the next Amendment. | |
| 124 | L2.0 |
In light of the request in Amendment 5 for submission of complete proposals and further statements that previously submitted documents will not be evaluated or referenced, please confirm whether any offeror can now submit an ENCORE III proposal regardless of whether they have previously submitted an ENCORE III proposal?
| Yes new offerors may submit a proposal for the reopened solicitation. | |||||
| 124 | L | Attachment L2 and L8 | Both Attachments ask for 'Dollar Value (Current Life Cycle Value)'. Please clarify as this could be the current contract value or the anticipated life cycle value at the end of the contract. | The current life cycle value is define as the total value of the contract if all options are exercised. | |
| 124 | L2.0 | CAGE Code - Section L2.0, General Instructions, provides, “For the purpose of this solicitation, an offeror is defined as a prime contractor or Joint Venture Teaming Arrangement. No subcontractor, affiliate, or subsidiary experience or past performance will be recognized. Each offeror, identified by a distinct CAGE code, may submit only one proposal against a suite of contracts subject to the restrictions of section L2.3(f).” The new underlined language, when read in conjunction with the highlighted language regarding CAGE codes, suggests that DISA will reject past performance submissions that reference a CAGE code different from the CAGE code on the proposal. Does DISA recognize that some offerors may have separate CAGE codes for different unincorporated business units within the same company, such that the offeror’s past performance submission might reference a CAGE code that is different from the CAGE code on the offeror’s proposal? Will it be acceptable to include an explanation in the proposal to establish that the entity claiming the past performance is the same entity as the offeror? | The RFP was amended to provide specific provisions regarding subsidiaries and affiliates. | ||
| 125 | L2.3.f | Small Business Proposals - [In section L2.3f of the RFP, the Government states that, “In Volume I cover page of the proposal, (Section L, Attachment L7), the offeror must indicate in which suite it wishes to receive an award if found to be awardable under both evaluations.” Question: Can the offeror assume that if selected for the Small Business Set-aside Suite that the awardee can bid on all tasks regardless of whether it is a small business set aside or full and open? | That is not a correct assumption. The two suites are separate and distinct. | ||
| 125 | L2.3.d | Attachment 7 | Section requires confirmation that proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from the proposal due date. Section L, Attachment L7, Item x, states that proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from September 7, 2016. Would the government please clarify what date should be used. | Will be corrected with the next Amendment. | |
| 125 | L2.3.d | This paragraph states that 'proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from proposal due date'. But Attachment L7, Exeecutive Summary Cover Page, Paragraph x. asks for confirmation that the 'proposal is valid for a minimum of 365 days from September 7, 2016 | Will be corrected with the next Amendment. | ||
| 125 | L2.3.d | Attachment 7 | Paragraph L2.3d states that an offeror's proposal must be valid for a minimum of 365 days from the proposal due date (September 30, 2016). However, Block "X" in Attachment L7 (Executive Summary Cover Page) specifies that the offeror must confirm their proposal validity for a minimum of 365 days from September 7, 2016. Which date should the offeror use? | Will be corrected with the next Amendment. | |
| 125 | L2.0 | Section states the "technical/management proposals will be evaluated based on offerers experience. Question. Can this experience draw from relevant experience from any contract outside of the DoD/IC | No, the term "relevant" is defined in RFP Sections M2.1 and M3.1, as applicable | ||
| 125 | L2.5.1 | Attachment L7 | The page limitation for the Cover Page in Volume I - Executive Summary has been revised from 3 pages in the original submission to now 2 pages. Would the Government consider revising the page count back to 3 pages to allow for the extra space needed for the addition of multiple authorized negotiators in L7v, as well as for the evidence to be provided in L7vii? | No. |
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 .