The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
ATTACHMENT 8 Questions & Answers
HC104718R4004
| Question # |
| Technical / Management |
Questions / Comments
| RFP Reference |
| Government Response |
| RFP Change Required (Y/N) |
| Location of Change |
| 1 |
| The PWS states “The facilities shall be within thirty (30) linear miles of the DSO Annapolis facility”. Would the Government consider extending this distance to thirty-five (35) linear miles of the DSO Annapolis facility to increase the competitiveness of this acquisition from highly capable small businesses in the National Capital Region specializing in Government contracting and spectrum management? |
| Attachment_1_-_PWS Section 6.1.2. Subtask 1.2 |
| The distance will extended to 40 linear miles |
| Y |
| PWS 9 |
| 2 |
| The RFP states that offers must "specifically address the processes, tools, infrastructure, resources, risks, and dependencies that will be utilized to meet or exceed the requirements for EEP Development, Operations, and Maintenance described within Performance Work Statement Tasks 6.3 and 6.4." The PWS states that "The contractor shall provide all infrastructure, hardware, and any other product or service required to successfully transition the EEP." |
QUESTION 1: To ensure a full and open competition, will the Government provide the necessary run-time binaries for all versions of EEP so that the EEP source code can be fully compiled for verification by non-incumbent offerors that their infrastructure and hardware have the capabilities necessary to host EEP—which is a critical aspect of providing best possible price to the Government on a LPTA basis and of properly identifying risks?
QUESTION 2: If the run-time binaries for all versions of EEP are not provided within a reasonable time frame, will the Government extend the proposal submission due date to ensure fair competition?
| RFP 3(1)(a) PWS 6.2.1 |
| Q1:Y (Can be provided as long as requested with full nondisclosure) |
Q2: No extension to submittal date can be granted N
| 3 |
| Please confirm there is no physical hardware to be transferred as GFE to the new contractor and no portion of the ODC licenses plug number is intended to cover the cost of hardware/infrastructure. |
| RFP |
| Correct, there is no physical hardware to be transferred as GFE. No portion of the ODC plug number is intended to cover hardware/ infrastructure costs |
| N |
| 4 |
| Has the Government or third party validated that the EEP V.2.3 technical data package can successfully be compiled to operate on a hosting installation other than the current contractor’s environment? |
| RFP |
| EEP has been designed for a specific hosting infrastructure and may require modification to fully operate in a new environment |
| N |
| 5 |
| The schedule for deliveries of the SDP in PWS 6.3.1 B differs from the schedule in PWS 11. Please clarify the delivery schedule for the SDP. |
| PWS 6.3.1 B and PWS 11 |
| 6.3.1B has been updated to reflect initial delivery 20 days after award |
| Yes |
| PWS |
| 6 |
| In PWS 6.4.1, this sentence appears to have a portion missing, "Account requests must be approved by the, utilizing a standard account request form." Please confirm that these requests are to be approved by the COR. |
| PWS 6.4.1 |
| 6.4.1 has been updated to indicate that account requests must be approved by the DSRMT |
| Yes |
| PWS |
| 7 |
| We suggest that each of the following be excluded from the page count limitations: List of Figures, List of Tables, Cross-reference Matrix, Resumes, OCCI Analysis, Filled-in FAR Clauses. |
| RFP 2(e) |
| The following are excluded from the page count: List of Figures, List of Tables, Cross-reference Matrix, Resumes, OCCI Analysis, Filled-in FAR Clauses. |
| Yes |
| RFP 2 |
| 8 |
| Please confirm that the Cover Letter, FAR/DFARS/DARS Provisions- Clauses, OCCI Analysis, and OCCI Mitigation Plan may be submitted in a Contracts Volume which is separate from the Technical and Cost volumes. |
| RFP 2(a), 5 |
| Yes, they are separate from Technical/Cost Volumes |
| Yes |
| RFP |
| 9 |
| RFP 2(b) states that Section 508 standards do NOT apply. RFP 1, 2(c) and PWS 15 states that Section 508 standards apply. Please confirm that conformance to section 508 standards are required for software delivered under this TO. |
| RFP 1, RFP 2(b), PWS 15 |
| Section 508 Standards does apply |
| Yes |
| PWS |
| 10 |
| RFP 3(1)(a) and PWS 6.3.1 require modifying the GFE code to comply with Section 508 standards. Please confirm that the existing Government-furnished EEP code is compliant with Section 508 standards. |
| RFP 3(1)(a) and PWS 6.3.1 |
| Existing code is not Section 508 compliant |
| No |
| 11 |
| RFP Section 2 appears to be missing a portion of the last sentence on page 1 and continuing into page 2. It says, "The Contractor that is fully cognizant of the scope of this requirement and has the capability to complete all requirements described in the solicitation." Will the Government please clarify this statement? |
| RFP 2 |
| By responding to the RFP, the Contractor is fully cognizant of the scope of this requirement, and acknowledges to have the capability to complete all requirements described in the solicitation |
| Yes |
| RFP 2 |
| 12 |
| PWS 19 specifies key personnel, and states that the “The PM shall be Project Management Professional certified (or equivalent) with at least 10 years of applicable experience.” |
Will additional years of experience leading spectrum management software development projects be accepted in lieu of the PMP certification?
| PWS Section 19 |
| Yes, five additional years of experience is acceptable |
| Yes |
| PWS |
| 13 |
| The evaluation criteria for Technical/Management, Past Performance and Cost/Price provided in Attachment 5 - Evaluation Tables do not match the evaluation criteria in the RFP. Please confirm that the evaluation criteria in the RFP will be used to evaluate the proposals instead of Attachment 5. |
| RFP 3(1), Attachment 5 |
| Evaluation Tables in Attachment 5 are correct, RFP revised to reflect. |
| Yes |
| RFP |
| 14 |
| The PWS posted for Amd. 1 on FBO does not match the PWS embedded in the Amd. 1 RFP posted on FBO. Specifically, PWS Section 5 and the amount of surge to be bid. Please confirm that the Government is specifying 5% surge. |
| PWS 5 |
| Yes, 5% Surge will be required |
| Yes |
| PWS Section 5 |
| 15 |
| RFP 3(1)(c) requires a draft TOMP with the proposal. PWS 11 requires a framework TOMP with the proposal and a draft TOMP 20 days after award. Please confirm that it is the Government's intent to receive a TOMP framework with the proposal and a draft TOMP 20 days after award. |
| RFP 3(1)(c) and PWS 11 |
| Yes, a TOMP Framework is required to be submitted with proposals, and Draft TOMP 20 days after award |
| Yes |
| RFP/PWS |
| 16 |
| RFP 2(b) and RFP Attachment 4 require an SCRM Plan with the proposal. PWS 11 requires a draft SCRM plan 15 days after award. Please confirm that the SCRM plan is due with the proposal and an update is due 15 days after award. |
| RFP 2(b). RFP Attachment 4 and PWS 11 |
| Revised PWS to reflect RFP |
| Yes |
| PWS 11 |
| 17 |
| Would the Government consider a third-party hosting environment approved to the FISMA moderate level as an acceptable EEP MS SharePoint deployment and installation environment? |
| Yes, as long as security requirments are met |
| No |
| 18 |
| The RFP states that "Attachment 7 contains provisions that apply to this solicitation and clauses that will be applicable to the resulting award. Some of the provisions require a response from the offeror and will need to be submitted along with your proposal." |
Could the Government please clarify whether Attachment 7 responses should be included in either the technical/management volume and/or the cost price, or whether Attachment 7 responses should be delivered as separate attachments?
| RFP 4 |
| See question 7 and 8 |
| Yes |
| RFP |
| 19 |
| The PWS states that "The contractor shall make recommendations to the DSO regarding options to address emerging requirements and implement the changes to EEP upon direction from DSO. The following new requirements may be added to EEP . . . -508 Compliance - the contractor shall evaluate EEP for compliance with Section 508 . . . and modify EEP, to achieve full compliance." The RFP states that "Section 508 Accessibility Standards apply to this requirement." |
QUESTION 1: Is EEP currently Section 508 compliant?
QUESTION 2: Is Section 508 compliance a prerequisite to initial deployment of the transitioned EEP?
PWS 6.3.1
RFP 2(c) Q1: It is not 508 compliant
Question 2: Per PWS 6.3.1, 508 compliance will be added to the backlog and addressed through software development No
| 20 |
| In multiple locations in the PWS, the Government has identified requirements and deliverables that do not appear in list of GFI in PWS Section 13.0. Deliverables such as GFE List, Master Test Plan (PWS 6.3.1), System Metrics Document (PWS 6.3.1 and 6.3.3), Build Installation Instructions (PWS 6.3.3), EEP Help Desk Incident Log (PWS 6.4.1), EEP Operations and Maintenance Plan (PWS 6.4.1), EEP System Security Plan (PWS 6.4.2). An offeror may offer the best pricing if these documents are provided as GFI. |
Will the Government please confirm that any documents/artifacts from the incumbent generated for v2.3 of EEP will be GFI and provide an updated RFP stating as such along with a detailed list of all GFI documents/artifacts?
| PWS |
| Documents will not be provided in the RFP, but will be provided after award of contract to successful offeror. |
System metrics are new requirements No
| 21 |
| On page 30 of the PWS, the text goes from Section 11 to Section 12.1 – there is no Section 12.0 included. Does Section 12.0 begin immediately following the Deliverables Table on page 30? Is just the heading 12.0 Security Requirements missing? |
| PWS Page 30 |
| No substantive material missing. Section header added |
| Yes |
| PWS 12 |
| 22 |
| What is the minimum point size allowed for text contained in a graphic? |
| RFP Letter Page 3 |
| see 2(e) ,Pg3 |
| No |
| 23 |
| Regarding the offerors’ proposals shall address all aspects of the PWS. Does the Government require a response to the OPTIONAL CLIN stated in PWS 6.2.2? |
| 6.2.2. Subtask 2.2. - Transition-Out of Contract and Continuity of Services (OPTIONAL CLIN)(FFP)(RDT&E) |
| a response is required for optional CLINs |
| No |
| 24 |
| Regarding the offerors’ proposals shall address all aspects of the PWS, Does the Government require a response to the OPTIONAL CLIN stated in PWS 6.2.3? |
| Optional CLINs should be addressed |
| No |
| 25 |
| Regarding past performance and past performance evaluation factors (the wording is identical in the RFP attachment 5 and RFP Evaluation criteria.) Will only CPARs be used for Past performance evaluation? |
| Past Performance is not being evaluated |
| Yes |
| RFP/ |
Attachment 5
| 26 |
| Regarding past performance and past performance evaluation factors (the wording is identical in the RFP attachment 5 and RFP Evaluation criteria.) What format does the Government want the Past Performance to be in? |
| Past Performance is not being evaluated |
| Yes |
| RFP/ Attachment 5 |
| 27 |
| In the interest of ensuring adequate competition, would the Government consider removing the requirement for the contractor to have a facility within 30 miles of the DSO Annapolis facility or revise the requirement to state XX miles? |
| PWS 6.1.2 |
| see question 1 |
| Yes |
| PWS |
| 28 |
| If the Government requires the awardee to have a location within 30 miles of the DSO Annapolis facility, does the location need to be operated by the Prime contractor? Would the Government accept a primary subcontractor’s facility to meet this requirement? |
| PWS 6.1.2 |
| The location does not need to be operated by the Prime contractor. The primary subcontractor’s facility would be acceptable. See Q1 for update to location miles |
| Yes |
| PWS |
| 29 |
| Can the government clarify which deliverables are for each PWS Task are correct. The ones shown under each PWS section in the PWS Section 6 Performance Section 6 or Section 11 Delivery Schedu |
| Attachment 1_PWS Section Section 6 and PWS section 11 |
| Section 11 Delivery Schedule reflects all deliverales identified in Section 6 deliverable |
| No |
Questions / Comments
| RFP Reference |
| Government Response |
| RFP Change Required (Y/N) |
| Location of Change |
| 30 |
| Will the Government please disclose all contract/task order numbers under which portions of this work have been performed by the incumbent contractor, in addition to the contract information disclosed on the cover sheet |
| Cover Sheet |
| There were two task orders identified: HC1047-07-D-0001 for EEP development: TO-0951 and TO-1110, Advanced Wireless Services- 3 (AWS-3) Early Entry Portal (EEP). The current contract/task order is HC1047-16-D-0008/ |
HC104717F0082, AWS-3 O&M Support.
| Yes |
| RFP pg1 & PWS header information |
| 31 |
| Is the Government 13 FTE the average at the peak of EEP design and development or the average for EEP in the O&M phase of the life-cycle? |
| Cover Sheet |
| The total number of FTEs for this requirement is 4. |
| Yes |
| RFP Pg1 |
| 32 |
| The RFP letter states, “The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional 6-month period, and surge pricing as requested below.” |
QUESTION 1: Can the Government please confirm that offerors are not required to provide pricing for SOW Tasks that are labeled as “Optional” (i.e., Subtasks 2.2 and 2.3)?
QUESTION 2: If pricing is required for Optional subtasks, how will they be factored into the total evaluated price?
| RFP Letter |
| Q1: pricing is required for Option tasks |
Question 2: all tasks are being evaluated in the total cost. (i.e. same way Option Years are priced without guarantee it will be exercised in the future) No
| 33 |
| RFP Cost Evaluation Factor asks for DCAA or DCMA points of contact. As a small business although we have DCAA compliant (III party approved) accounting/purchasing/invoicing system we do not have DCAA or DCMA approved systems. We are assuming that our payroll system for existing employees and salary range from subscribed job boards will be justification enough for DL and IDL rates. Please confirm |
| RFP 3(2)(c) |
RFP 3(2)(c)(h)
| Yes, see Q42 response for exemption of CAS approved system. |
| Yes |
| RFP |
| 34 |
| RFP 3(2)(a) says "These prices shall be identical to the quoted pricing in the 6 months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present." |
Since the final six months of the final option period are not priced separately it is not possible for the Government to compare the last 6 months of the option year with the 6-month extension. Is it acceptable to bid the 6-month extension at half the price of the final option year?
| RFP 3(2)(a) |
| Yes, you can price half of the year for the 6 mo extension |
| No |
| 35 |
| The CLIN Pricing Worksheet, "CLIN Structure" tab includes a line for CLIN 0002, 6.2.2 in the base year only. It is likely that the Transition Out Support will be needed in one of the option years or in the optional 6-month extension. Please confirm that 6.2.2 Transition Out work is to be included only in the base year. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet |
| CLIN 0002, 6.2.2 should be included in the base year and all option years. Updated spreadsheet |
| Yes |
| Attachment 3 |
| 36 |
| The CLIN Pricing Worksheet, "CLIN Structure" tab includes a line for CLIN 0002, 6.2.3 in Option Period 1, Option Period 3 and the 6-month extension. The spreadsheet does not provide a line for Option Period 2. Option Period 2 is included on the CLIN 3 Tab. Please provide an updated spreadsheet. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet |
| updated spreadsheet |
| Yes |
| Attachment 3 |
| 37 |
| The CLIN pricing worksheet contains multiple tabs for providing rates. Please confirm that the "Prime rates" and "Sub A/B/C Rates" tabs should be used for CPFF rates. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet, "Prime rates" and "Sub A/B/C Rates" tabs |
| Yes, tabs should be used for CPFF rates. |
| No |
| 38 |
| The CLIN pricing worksheet contains multiple tabs for providing rates. Please confirm that the "FFP Sch of Rates" tab should be used for FFP rates. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet, FFP Sch of Rates tab |
| Tabs should be used for FFP rates. |
| No |
| 39 |
| The CLIN pricing worksheet "FFP Sch of Rates" tab contains the note "Note: These labor rates are provided as an example. For labor categories proposed, please record your FFP Labor Rates here." Please confirm that offerors can add a column to this tab mapping the Government furnished labor categories to contractor labor categories. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet, FFP Sch of Rates tab |
| Yes, offerors can add a column to this tab mapping the Government furnished labor categories to contractor labor categories. |
| No |
| 40 |
| The CLIN pricing worksheet "FFP Sch of Rates" tab contains columns for Government Site rates. PWS 9 says that the work will be performed at the contractor site. Please confirm that all work will be performed at contractor sites and that providing Government site rates is not required. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet, FFP Sch of Rates tab |
| all work will be performed at contractor sites, Government site rates is not required. |
| Yes |
| Attachment3 |
| 41 |
| The formulas in the CLIN Pricing Worksheet, "Consolidated Summary" tab appear to add hours and dollars together in places. For example cell C5 contains the formula "='CLIN 1'!F5+'CLIN 2'!O5+'CLIN 5'!N5+'CLIN 7'!G5+'CLIN 8'!G5". The references point to hours for CLIN 1, 5, 7 and 8 and to dollars for CLIN 2. Please provide an updated spreadsheet. |
| CLIN Pricing Worksheet, "Consolidated Summary" tab |
| Spreadsheet has been updated to remove formulas. Offerors are reccommended to input their own formulas |
| 42 |
| FAR 16.301-3, Limitations, states that “A cost-reimbursement contract may be used only when (3) the contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order”. Will the Government accept a DCAA compliant (III party approved) accounting system or are offerors required to have a DCAA or DCMA approved accounting system in order to receive an award? |
| RFP 2(f)v. |
| Yes |
(Ref: FAR appendix 9903.201-1 -- CAS Applicability ).
| 43 |
| Will the Government please provide a detailed list of products, licenses, etc. that comprise the "plug" number for ODC (i.e., $27,972)? |
| PWS 6.2.1 |
RFP 3(1)(b) and CLIN pricing template
| The software and hardware requirements for development and deployment can be found in the EEP Software Design document (provided as reading room material with the RFP), Tables 2.6 and 3.6). The plug number is an estimate of funds that may be required to aintain/support hte EE P infrastructure |
| No |
| 44 |
| RFP Letter, page 8, paragraph 3.c (2)(g), which pertains to the Cost/Price Factor, indicates that the past performance evaluation factor will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable based on the definitions contained in Table 2 of the Evaluation Plan (Attachment 5). |
Can the Government please confirm that past performance must be addressed within the Cost/Price volume.
| RFP Letter and Attachment 5 |
| Past Performance will not be evaluated |
| Yes |
| RFP/ Attachment 5 |
| 45 |
| Attachment 5 Evaluation Plan and RFP Letter, page 5, 3.c (2) appear to state different Cost/Price evaluation criteria. RFP letter states that “Cost/Price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR Part 15.404, contract line item number (CLIN) Pricing”. Further it states that “Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-4 and DFARS 215.404-4”, AND that “Probable cost will be used for purpose of evaluation, rather than proposed cost, and probable cost will be calculated by adjusting CPFF CLINs based on the result of the cost realism analysis”. However, Attachment 5 states that the contractor’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable and complete and that the Government will determine completeness of the offeror’s proposal be verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format” AND that “the Government reserves the right to conduct a realism analysis of the proposed price”. |
Can the Government please confirm whether or not it will perform a realism analysis?
| RFP Letter Page 5, 3.c.(2) and Attachment 5 |
| IAW FAR 15.404-1, required when using Cost Type contracts |
| No |