HC1047-14-R-4006_Questions_and_Answers_02052014_(2).xls
XLS spreadsheet 54 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HC1047-14-R-4006
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP_Amendment_HC1047-14-R-4006-0004.pdf | ||
| Attachment_7_-_SF1408.pdf | ||
| RFP_AMD_0003.pdf | ||
| Attachment_3_-_Cost-Price_Worksheet_02062014.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| RFP_AMD_0002.pdf | ||
| Attachment_6_-_EPL_Worksheet.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| RFP_AMD_0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2_-_Past_Performance_References.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_3_-_Cost-Price_Worksheet.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_4_-_DD_254.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_-_Cross_Reference_Matrix.doc | DOC document | |
| RFP_HC1047-14-R-4006.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.pdf |
Show all 13
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
Sheet1
| Question | Section/Reference | Statement | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | M 2.1.3 | Through the Offeror’s Staffing Approach, demonstrate the ability to perform the tasks identified in the PWS within the specified performance standards. The Government will evaluate separately the qualifications of key personnel, so the Offeror must provide representative resumes for such key personnel; and | Who does DISA define as key personnel? | For the purpose of proposing, each firm will identify positions/personnel they consider key. At contract award the Government will complete the Key personnel Clause 52.237-9000 |
| 2 | L.2.3/101 and L.2.4/102 | L.2.3 says "Electronic Offers: The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies." However, L.2.4 requires proposals to be emailed to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist. | Can the Government please clarify how the proposal will be submitted - will it be in hardcopy, CDs, Email Only or some other combination. It is unclear from the instructions. | Section L, para 2.3 revised. Proposals are to be submitted electronically and emailed to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. |
| 3 | PWS on p. 36 of 116 | The AEITA PWS states: “The work to be performed under this contract is up to the Top Secret level and will require Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access eligibility for the following tasks:” followed by a list of the tasks. Under Task 2, Engineering Support (CTO), the list of tasks does not include Subtask 1 (PWS 6.2.1); however, the description on p.21 indicates that the task requires TS-SCI . Under Task 3, Technology Piloting and Demonstration Support (CTO), the list of tasks does not include Subtask 2 (PWS 6.3.2); however, the description on p. 22 indicates that the task requires TS-SCI. | Please clarify which is the correct information. | Top Secret |
| 4 | PWS 12.1 Security Clearance, p. 35; Section M 2.1.1, p. 110 | The AEITA PWS states that “All personnel require security clearance at least at the SECRET level.” A listing of specific tasks/subtasks which require TS/SCI follows. Section M on p. 110, 2.1.1 states “Personnel performing all tasks of the PWS must hold a current Top Secret Clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal submission. The Offeror shall demonstrate that personnel hold the applicable security clearance to perform the work described in the PWS.” | Please clarify the level of clearances the Government requires for all personnel assigned to the contract. | Top Secret |
| 5 | Section M 2.1.1, p. 110 | Should the Offeror demonstrate by task/subtask that personnel hold the correct level of clearance to perform that task? | What is the preferred or required method of demonstration? | The Government cannot direct you as to how you should make this demonstration. This is up to each individual firm to make this determination. |
| 6 | Section M 2.1.1, p. 110 | Please quantify the criteria for SCI eligibility. | How should we demonstrate this eligibility? | Refer to answer 5 |
| 7 | Section M 2.1.2 (Sub-Factor 2: Technical Approach) p. 110 and Section M 2.1.3 (Sub-Factor 3: Management Approach) | Section M 2.1.2 (Sub-Factor 2: Technical Approach) beginning on p. 110 and Section M 2.1.3 (Sub-Factor 3. Management Approach) evaluation criteria appear not to be directly related to the work described in the PWS, but rather to the operations of Forge.mil. | Please clarify if these are the correct evaluation criteria for AEITA, in order for us to craft a meaningful response. | Section M para 2.1.2 & 2.1.3 revised to reflect the correct evaluation criteria for AEITA |
| 8 | Section M 2.1.2 (Sub-Factor 2: Technical Approach) p. 110 and Section M 2.1.3 (Sub-Factor 3: Management Approach) | Would the Government consider an extension of the proposal due date commensurate with the days lost until these criteria are clarified? | No | |
| 9 | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.1.4, p. 100 | In Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.1.4, there is an instruction to use the Encore II website for updates and information about this solicitation. Is this in addition to FBO? | Is this in addition to FBO? | Section L, para 2.1.4 revised to read, " All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps.gov) website". |
| 10 | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.2.1.1, p. 100-101 | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.2.1.1, states “for tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 14.” It has been our experience that the font for text for graphics is usually smaller than the font for proposal text. | Would the Government clarify that 14 font is what they expect for tables and graphics? | For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 14. |
| 11 | Section SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, and Section 252.243-7001 | On pages 5,8,11,14,18 (pricing) 30 (travel) and 90 (QASP), the solicitation indicates that the requirements for Task 6 are “optional”. | Please clarify if Task 6 is optional, and if confirmed as “optional,” if that task is included in the evaluation for technical, past performance and price. | Task 6 is Optional. It should be priced. It will be evaluated for technical, past performance and cost/price |
| 12 | Section SF1449; and" Clauses" Section beginning on page 42 | Based upon our review of the RFP, we noted some ambiguities with regard to the procurement type for this contract award. The RFP language and clauses indicate a Fixed Price award while the CLIN structure eludes to a hybrid FFP and CPFF award. Given that all tasks in the PWS appear as though they can be performed and delivered on an FFP-LOE (hourly labor rate) basis; | In order to provide the Government tasking flexibility, the added benefit of price stability, increased competition, and for some offerors the ability to provide its lowest price to the Government, can offerors propose tasks 2, 3, 5 and 6 on an FFP-LOE basis and still be deemed responsive to the RFP? | Task 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Base plus all options) shall be priced on a CPFF basis. IAW FAR Part 16, FFP LOE cannot exceed $150K. |
| 13 | PWS Section 6.1.2 | Would the Government consider a quarterly IPR schedule, as opposed to a monthly IPR schedule? | No. IAW PWS Section 6.1.2, contractor shall provide monthly Interim Progress reviews (IPR). | |
| 14 | Section 11 - Delivery and Payment Schedule | For tasks 6.1.2 it asks that IPR slides be provided 5 days prior to the IPR, and that IPRs take place within one week after the end of the month. As we read this this means that the winning bidder would be responsible for providing IPR slides on the last day of the month for which the IPR is covering, which would mean that these slides may be missing data since invoicing does not occur until the 15th. | Can the Government please relook this schedule and confirm the time line for the IPRs and the IPR slides? | Timeline for IPRs and IPR Slide remains unchanged. |
| 15 | Section 14 | We are unable to open the EPL worksheet attachment. | Can the Government please post an electronic copy of the worksheet to FBO? | Attachment 6 - Electronic copy of EPL Worksheet to be posted to FBO. |
| 16 | PWS - Section 12.2 | In section 12.2 of the PWS on page 36 of the RFP it mentions IT-I and IT-II clearance? | Can the Government please provide further information on these classifications, and whether/how they translate to SECRET and TS clearance? | IT - I & IT-II classifications translate to Top Secret Clearance. PWS, para 12.2 has revised accordingly. |
| 17 | Section L - 2.0(d) - General Instructions | In Section L - 2.0(d) the RFP it says that proposals shall include a statement that the proposal acceptance period for the submitted proposal is 90 days, and that this statement shall be included in the "Contract Documentation Volume". However, mention of a "Contract Documentation Volume" does to appear to exist elsewhere in the RFP, and does not appear in table 2.2 on page 100 of the RFP. | Should proposals include a "Contract Documentation Volume? and, if so, what other items should be included in the "Contract Documentation Volume"? | refer to Section L, table 2.2 Proposal Organization. It indicated the volume titles . The titles clear indicates what is required for those volumes. The statement of acceptance referred to in Section L, 2.0(d) should be indicated in Volume I, Executive Summary. |
| 18 | Section L 2.0 (d) | In which volume should the statement that the offeror's proposal is valid for 90 days be included? | Refer to answer 17 | |
| 19 | Section L - 2.2.2 | Section L 2.2.2 lists 8 tasks and states that the cost proposal should be separated according to the 8 task list. These tasks, however, do not appear to line up with the tasks identified in the PWS. | Can the Government please advise on how the cost proposal should be separated? | Refer to answer 17 |
| 20 | Section L 2.2.3 | In Section L 2.2.3 it states that cross referencing within a proposal is permitted. | Accordingly, should the cross-referencing matrix be placed in all proposal volumes where cross-referencing takes place, or should it only be included in one volume, and if only in one volume - should it be the Technical/Management Volume? | Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. If a offeror believes that a cross references is needed/required for a volume, then they should propose accordingly. |
| 21 | Section L 4.2.1 | In section 4.2.1 on page 102 of the solicitation it states that offerors should address their proposed approach to meet or exceed minimum requirements of each technical/management sub-factor “in terms of technical/performance, cost and/or schedule.” This appears to conflict with direction from earlier in the solicitation that emphasized that any information related to cost should be placed exclusively in the Cost Volume. | Can you please confirm whether or not there should be any mention of cost in the Technical Volume? | All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal. Section L, para 4.2.1 revised to remove "cost". |
| 22 | Section L 4.2.2 | As we read the instructions on Pg. 102 (section 4.2.2) it appears that the Government’s preference for organization is to have proposers address each sub-factor from section M in consecutive order as opposed to addressing each task from the PSW in consecutive order. | Can the Government please confirm that this is what was intended? | The intent is for proposal organization. |
| 23 | Section L 5.2 | Does every subcontractor need to execute the Subcontractor Consent form identified on page 103 of the RFP, or, alternatively, are only those sub-contractors that are anticipated to perform 20% or more of the work required to sign the consent form? | Provide with the proposal a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. | |
| 24 | Section L 5.2 | With respect to completion of the Past Performance Questionnaires, if an offeror supports/supported multiple Offices within an Agency by way of sub-tasking under a GSA Task Order, and the offeror wishes to submit past performance on the Task Order should support to the multiple Offices within the agency be presented by way of a single instance of past performance, or should support to each distinct Office be presented as distinct instances of past performance? In other words, if Government representatives from separate Offices within the Agency that received support under separate GSA sub-tasks under the same Task Order each submit a past performance, would this count as one instance of past performance or two separate instances of past performance. | As stated in Section L, 5.2 When submitting past performance questionnaires, there should only be one contract, task order or delivery order per questionnaire. Contracts, task orders or delivery orders SHALL NOT be combined or bundled and submitted as one effort. Submitting past performance references in any other manner may be considered non-responsive and may/will not be considered in the Agency’s past performance evaluation. | |
| 25 | Section L 6.1.4 | In Section L 6.1.4 (p. 105) the Government requests that all sub-contractors submit their cost breakout to the CO. | How should the electronic file containing their breakouts be labeled when sent, in what format should their breakouts be provided, and is the deadline for receipt the same as the RFP response deadline? | Each offeror should submit their response to the RFP via email on the due date outline in the RFP. The electronic file should clear indicate the Technical, Past Performance and Cost volumes. |
| 26 | Section L 7.5 | On Page 107 of the RFP it states that "Associate Contractor Agreements" should be included if applicable. | Can the Government please clarify what is meant by "Associate Contractor Agreement" (i.e. would these be Joint Venture agreements, Sub-contract agreements, Consulting agreements, and/or another type of agreement)? | Yes, Joint Venture agreements, Sub-contract agreements, Consulting agreements, and/or another type of agreement. |
| 27 | Section M 2.1 | With respect to Section M "Evaluation Criteria", can the Government please confirm that these requirements correspond to this AEITA Support RFP? The tasks/requirements called out in Section M (and also in the Section L instructions - Sub Section 2.2.2) do not appear to closely correspond with the tasks called out in the AEITA PWS. For example the requirements listed in Sections M 2.1.1; 2.1.2; and 2.1.3 do not appear to line-up with the PWS. | can the Government please confirm that these requirements correspond to this AEITA Support RFP? | See response to question 7. |
| 28 | Section M 2.1 | On pages 35 and 36 of the RFP (PWS - Section 12 - Security), it states that only personnel working on certain tasks are required to have TS Clearance with SCI eligibility, while all other personnel must have at least SECRET level clearance. This contrasts with language in Section M on page 110 of the RFP, which states that “personnel performing ALL tasks of the PWS must hold a current Top Secret Clearance with SCI eligibility at the time of proposal submission". | Can the Government please clarify? | PWS, Section 12.1, revised to require security clearance at the Top Secret Level for all contractor personnel. |
| 29 | Section L - 2.2 - Organization / Number of Copies / Page Limits | In the first paragraph under Section L-2.2 on page 100 of the RFP it states that attachments identified in table 2.2 should be "separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders." However, Section L - 2.4 on page 102 of the RFP states that proposal shall be emailed to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Specialist. | Are hard copies of the proposal required, or should proposals only be sent in electronic form? If hard copies are required to which address, and who's attention should they be mailed to? | See response to question 2. |
| 30 | Section L 5.2 | As we read section 5.2 on page 103-104 of the RFP, proposers are instructed to provide up to 4 Past Performance Efforts, and for EACH effort the proposer should include: (1) a 2 page or less description of the effort that includes all information enumerated in the i – ix list in section 5.2; (2) an explanation that is 3 pages or less, which explains why the effort cited is deemed relevant; AND (3) include any reports that clearly display client assessment of performance – no page limit for each report, or limit to the number of reports for EACH effort. | Can you please confirm that this is a correct reading of the solicitation, and that such a response for EACH past performance would be responsive to the RFP? | Contractor shall submit no more than four (4) recent past performance efforts for evaluation. It should not exceed 2 pages as stated in the RFP. |
| 31 | Section L 5.1 / Section L 5.2 | Is Past Performance required on all proposed Sub-contractors who are anticipated to complete 20% of the work or critical work as stated in Section 5.1 on Pg. 103; or is past performance required for each subcontractor generally, as stated in section 5.2, paragraph 2 on Pg. 103 where the solicitation says "(In cases of multiple subcontractors, a minimum of one (1) past performance effort shall be from the prime and one (1) from each subcontractor)"? | As stated in Section L, 5.2 Offerors shall submit no more than four (4) recent past performance efforts for evaluation. Recent is considered within three (3) years from the date of this RFP. At a minimum, one (1) of these past performance efforts shall be from the prime contractor and a minimum of one (1) from the subcontractor. (In case of multiple subcontractors, a minimum of one (1) past performance efforts shall be from the prime and one (1) from each subcontractor.) Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last three (3) years, including those efforts currently being performed. Recent efforts submitted will be reviewed for relevancy and quality, and then an overall confidence assessment will be assigned for the past performance factor in accordance with the attached evaluation plan. Cited past performance efforts shall not exceed 2 pages. In the case of multiple subcontractors, the total number of past performance references cannot exceed four (4). | |
| 32 | Section L 7.2 - 7.5 | In which volume should the information requested in Section L 7.2 – 7.5 (Pg. 106 of the solicitation) be included? | Volume I - Executive Summary | |
| 33 | Section l, para 2.2.1.1 | Could the font size for table, charts, and figures be reduced to 10 font as 14 font for graphs and figures would surely be to display in our response? | For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 14 point. | |
| 34 | Section M para 2.1.3 | What is considered Key Personnel Labor Categories? | See response to question 1. | |
| 35 | SaaS is normally Software as a Service, NOT SERVICE. Can you clarify this for us please? | PWS, para 6.3.3, subtask 3 is revised to correctly state as Software as a Service (SaaS) | ||
| 36 | Is the maximum page count for Past Performance 2 or 3? | Two (2) pages per past performance report. | ||
| 37 | Do subs need to submit a cost volume? | yes, if they are providing pricing as part of the Cost volume. | ||
| 38 | Pricing Worksheet contradictions. The RFP shows 8 tasks, the Price Summary Spreadsheet shows 7 tasks. Which ones do we go by? | Which ones do we go by? | IAW RFP Section L, para 2.2.2. The spreadsheet can be adjusted by offerors to account for all task. | |
| 39 | Is there a required location or is the location at the discretion of the contractor? | Discretion of the contractor. | ||
| 40 | Who is the incumbent contractor for this work? | Science and Technology Associates | ||
| 41 | If there is an incumbent, please provide historical data on hours and labor categories for the prior contract? | Refer to question for a response to the incumbent. This is a performance based acquisition. All Offerors should propose accordingly for this effort. | ||
| 42 | Would you be able to tell how many FTEs are currently fulfilling the requirements for DISA TIE NEMS? | This question is not applicable to AEITA RFP. | ||
| 43 | Can you provide the labor category descriptions for the FTEs currently performing the work? | No. This is a performance based acquisition. All Offerors should propose accordingly for this effort. Labor category differ between firms. | ||
| 44 | What is the approximate value of the contract? | Total contract cost will be determined at time of award. | ||
| 45 | How many FTEs are required for this work? | Refer to question 43 | ||
| 46 | What is the current contracts period of performance? | The current pop is 09/30/11 - 03/28/14 | ||
| 47 | "9. Place of Performance: Unclassified work to be accomplished under this PWS shall be done at both the contractor’s facilities and at DISA, Ft. Meade, MD 20755." | What is the anticipated level of staffing required at contractor site? | This will be determined at contract award. | |
| 48 | In order to properly price out the staffing levels required, can the Gov’t provide sample tasks for each task area? | No. Propose IAW the RFP/PWS. | ||
| 49 | Will the Government allow the use of font no smaller than 10 point for tables and illustration instead of 14 point, so that these items can be limited to a reasonable size? | No, refer back to the what's stated in the RFP. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 14 point. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .