Clover DraftRFP_Q-A_Rd3release_24MAR.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EMERALD Follow-on: "CLOVER" update (FCL update)
- Solicitation number
- HM0476-20-R-0030-CNTD
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
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
Q&As Rd 3 CLOVER (Emerald Follow-On) Q&A responses, Rd 3 release - 24 MAR 2021 Last batch (Batch 3) of Draft RFP questions.
Duplicates deleted. For any disagreement between Q&A answers provided and/or within the Draft RFP, the final RFP will rule.
| Q. # | Category | Questions | Q. # | Answer |
| 14 | OCI | Strict avoidance OCI regarding potential conflicts with development efforts -- if applied to the subcontractor level, NGA will NOT be able to access key talent (accounting firm expertise for audit efforts) as some of the accounting firms also do dev work. | 14 | The Emerald contract was awarded OCI-Mitigatable, and is the predecessor to Clover. OCI clauses were looked at closely for inclusion in Clover to keep competition and staffing fair to industry. See definition of development efforts in RFP. This response supersedes the previous reply to the question. |
| 39 | Security | 1. Will prime companies and subcontractors be required to quantify and report their current cybersecurity compliance with NIST SP 800-171 requirements using the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology prior to award? | 39 | Yes, Primes and subcontractors will be required to quantify and report using latest NIST DoD Assessment Methodology prior to award. |
| 96 | Price | How does NGA intend to determine what is considered fair and reasonable in regards to a low and high price range submitted against each MATOC Work Service Category cost? | 96 | We will utilize historical pricing data, current pricing data from similar contracts and market surveys of prevailing labor rates. |
| 104 | Section M | Section M.5.1 requires the submission of Meaningful Relationship/ Workshare Commitment Letters, but these are not mentioned anywhere else in the solicitation. This requirement is not appropriate at the IDIQ level as there is no workshare commitment from the Government to the Primes. This requirement would only be applicable at the Task Order Level. It is recommended that the Government delete this clause. | 104 | To mitigate risk to the government, we will require Meaningful Relationship/Workshare Commitment Letters in certain circumstances, which will be defined in Section L of the final RFP. |
| 119 | Section L | Would the Government review paragraph L.11.3.1 to clarify whether it’s required? | 119 | The Government will review and update as needed in the final RFP. |
| 130 | Attachments | This paragraph refers to a Facility Clearance Level template, but no template is provided for in Section J. Would the Government clarify the submission requirement? | 130 | The Government will provide a Facility Clearance Level template with the final RFP. |
| 142 | Score Sheet | Would the Government confirm that the task order limit per MATOC or MADOC as described in this paragraph only refers to additional points claimed under sub-volume 2C? | 142 | Yes, the task order limit per IDIQ as described in paragraph M.8 only refers to additional points claimed under sub volume 2C. |
| 145 | Submission | The paragraph states that there is no minimum number of WSC projects required but Section L.22.3.1 states that the prime contractor must submit at least two of the submitted past performances. Would the Government clarify the past performance requirement? | 145 | See updated RFP at Section L.11.3, Volume 3 - Past Performance, upon release. No past performance submissions are mandated. However, positive past performance will be reviewed most favorably. The Self-Scoring sheet reflects one "green" past performance submission per WSC that may be submitted by any Small business Prime, All Small JV or Mentor Protégé JV. See final Section J.18, Self-Scoring sheet attachment. |
| 164 | Definition | Request the Government provide context / clarification for the definitions within the Evaluation Ratings for Relevant Experience Projects table, specifically as to the difference between the "Relevant" rating definition of "some aspects of the WSC" and the "Minimally Relevant" rating of "a few aspects of the WSC". |
AND
| Request the Government provide context / clarification for the definitions within the Evaluation Ratings for Relevant Experience Projects table, specifically as to the difference between the "Very Relevant" rating definition of "Offeror submission addresses all" and the "Relevant" rating of "Offeror fully addresses". | 164 | There is no intent to further define at this time. | |
| 168 | Definition | Can the Government define "at the time of staffing"? |
| Does this refer to the contract award date, contract start date, or TO start date, or by the end of the transition period? | 168 | "At the time of staffing" is being changed to state "at the time of contract award". See update in Final RFP. | |||
| 169 | SOW | Is this task intended to overlap with MOJAVE? Please describe the expected seam and collaboration expected. | 169 | There is no intent to overlap Clover and Mojave functions. | |
| 171 | SOW | See SOW section 4.4, Government Furnished Equipment/Information (GFE/GFI). Is this an estimate for all NGA sites? | 171 | The 65% estimate is in totality of all NGA locations personnel will work. | |
| 173 | Price | Is pricing scored, or pass/fail? | 173 | The pricing provided will be evaluated. | |
| 197 | Submission | Does the Government want the Prime to include teammate partners by company name, socio economic category, and highlight their relevant qualifications to Clover? If so what part of the proposal does the Government instruct to place this information. | 197 | If provided, Offerors would provide in Small Business Participation Plan, Volume 5. | |
| 204 | Billing | H.3(c ) States that "require consideration in the form of a credit or repayment for services not rendered against the total 1,860 FTE hour requirement" |
| Please clarify what credit they would seek for services non rendered against the 1,860 FTE hour requirement? Under the LOE, the government is not billed for any hours not performed against the 1,860. Would the credit be against the unused value or be above and beyond the unbilled hours against the 1,860? | 204 | If the contractor is unable to perform the required 1,860 FTE hours through no fault of the Government, the Government reserves the right to seek consideration. This will be negotiated at the time of occurrence. | |
| 213 | Scope | SOW Section 5.1, Clearance and Access Requirements, states that contractors will " Fabricate, modify, or store classified hardware." |
| Is the fabrication or modification of classified hardware within scope of this contract? | 213 | No. There is no intent to fabricate or modify hardware. This language ties to the DD254. | |
| 227 | Prime | H.12 SUBCONTRACTING - NGA is limiting subcontracting to the first tier level only. First tier subcontracting means the prime contractor that holds the IDIQ contract may subcontract to any company necessary to complete the requirements of the Statement of Work. The first tier subcontractor is prohibited from subcontracting that work to another contractor. |
| Can a CLOVER Prime contractor be a subcontractor on another Prime CLOVER team? | 227 | No. A CLOVER Prime contractor cannot subcontract to another Prime CLOVER contractor. | |
| 232 | JV | RFP Section H.12 SUBCONTRACTING states that GA is limiting subcontracting to the first tier level only. First tier subcontracting means the prime contractor that holds the IDIQ contract may subcontract to any company necessary to complete the requirements of the Statement of Work. The first tier subcontractor is prohibited from subcontracting that work to another contractor. |
If the prime is a joint venture (JV) seeking to qualify as a small business under the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations (13 CFR 121.103(h)), the JV must be unpopulated, id., and must subcontract the work to its JV members.
If NGA considers the subcontract between the JV prime and its members as first-tier subcontracts, then the JV members are prohibited by RFP Section H.12 from subcontracting work any work to another subcontractor (because those would be a second tier subcontractors).
Will NGA provide in the final RFP version of Section H.12 SUBCONTRACTING that subcontracts between a JV prime and its members are not considered “first tier subcontracts” within the meaning of that section? 232 NGA does not allow for second-tier subcontracting.
If partners are part of an unpopulated JV, they are considered subcontractors.
238 JV L.11.3.1 requires that at least two of the past performance submissions be from the Prime Contractor Offeror working as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor.
If a recently-created Joint Venture (JV) is the Prime Contractor Offeror, it is unlikely to have past performance experience as to work performed by the JV itself. U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations, 13 CFR 125.8(e), provide that a procuring agency, when evaluating past performance and experience of an offer submitted by a JV established under that section (i.e., a JV consisting of members that are parties to mentor-protégé agreement (MPA) approved by the SBA), must consider the work done and qualifications held by each JV partner.
| Will NGA revise the RFP’s Past Performance submission and evaluation provisions so that the past performance and experience of members of a JV covered by 13 CFR 125.8 are (1) considered to meet the JV Prime Contractor Offeror submission requirement of L.11.3.1, and (2) evaluated by NGA as the past performance and experience of the JV Prime Contractor offeror? | 238 | The Government is working with the Small Business Administration and the Department of Defense to answer this question. Please see final RFP. | |
| 240 | SOW | F.5 States that "Quality Control Plan; Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)" are part of the deliverables. |
| What specific performance standards/measures will be included in the QASP and will they be cover both the IDIQ MATOC and/or TOs? | 240 | QCPs will be utilized at the IDIQ level. The QASP will be utilized at the task order level. As such, specific performance standards and measures will depend on the requirements of the given task order. | |||
| 293 | Evaluation | How will the Government evaluate the Basis of Estimate? | 293 | For the purpose of price evaluation, Bases of Estimate (BOEs) will provide additional data for the Government to make a fair and reasonable determination. | |
| 294 | Price | Can the Government confirm that the 7.5% referenced is indeed Profit (on price) and not Fee (on cost) | 294 | It is on price, as profit is the portion of a fixed price award that is not intended to cover costs. | |
| 296 | Price | Because of the vast range of labor sub-categories identified, will the Government consider creating additional Rate categories or is the Government requesting that Offerors cross-walk the lowest paid position within a category to the "low" IDIQ rate and the highest paid position to the "high" IDIQ rate. | 296 | It is up to the vendor to make a business decision as to their preferred pricing strategy. | |
| 298 | Evaluation | - The SBA has recently changed the criteria to qualify for a given NAICS to be average annual revenues over the previous 5 years. Since the NAICS code is based on a type of work, a bidder should be allowed to claim past performance in that NAICS code over that same 5 year period used to qualify for the assigned NAICS code. | 298 | To ensure recency and relevancy within the requirement, the Government will review past performance data that has completed within the past three years. | |
| 305 | Evaluation | b. Allow non-NGA related relevant experience | 305 | Thank you for the recommendation. Non-NGA experience is allowed, and NGA-specific experience is not encouraged or incentivized beyond appropriate project size and complexity measures described in the cited section. | |
| 310 | JV | 7.Can a partner or stakeholder in a JV also perform work as a Subcontractor to the JV? In other words, could a large company end up performing 74% of the work ((51% x 49%) as a JV member + 49% as a sub)? | 310 | No, the managing partner of the JV must perform the required percentage of work. The remaining percentage will be to JV partners. (Mentor/Protégé and All small JVs - 40% of cost; traditional JV - 50%) | |
| 316 | Price | B.6 Fixed Price Labor Rates states: “The Clover IDIQ Contract will have a 5-year base ordering period. The Government will request 5 years of rates for the 5-year base period, and one (1) additional six-month option period.” |
M.8 states: “The Government will request 5 years of rates for the 5-year base period, and one (1) additional year of rates to allow for the possibility that the Government may exercise the option at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.”
| And J.3 Labor Rate Matrix – IDIQ requests rates for seven (7) Contract Years’. | 316 | Language at Section M.8 and in Attachment J.3 Labor Rate Matrix is intended to map to that at Section B.6. The Government will only ask for 5 years of rates, and pricing for one (1) additional six-month option. | |||
| 322 | JV | Per the SBA’s rules, if a Joint Venture (JV) itself does not have the specific past performance, capabilities, or experience then the government must look to the member companies of the JV for those requirements. Because of this requirement, we believe that any required certifications not held specifically by the JV itself, then ALL members of the JV must hold those certifications. After all, a JV is only the sum of all of its parts, and it is only as good as its weakest member. | 322 | See response to Question 238. | |
| 339 | Edit | Section H.36 states that both the current SF328 and the Key Management Personnel List (KMPL) list must be included in the proposal. However, Section L.11.4 only has instructions on submitting the SF328. Where should Offerors submit their KMPL? Should it go in Volume 4 as outlined in L.11.4.2 - Facility Clearance Level (FCL) and Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)? | 339 | Submit your Key Management Personnel List with Volume 1. See final RFP language, and latest Self-Scoring Sheet (Attachment J.18) for clarity on Key Personnel submission volumes. | |
| 365 | Scorecard | 5. In the Industry Certifications section of the Self Scoring Sheet, can we take credit for Level II and Level III? The reason we ask is that they are both totaled in the Subtotal score. What is the total possible maximum score? | 365 | A. A certification may be claimed once, at its highest level earned. |
B. See latest Self-Scoring Sheet (Attachment J.18) for updates and total maximum score.
| 368 | SOW | Could the government confirm if section 3.5.2.1 allows up to 4 people to be supplied against each position on contract and if any fraction of a person meets the J2 award plan staffing requirements for staffing? Recommend altering language of the award plan to equal hours of delivery, NOT FTE or headcount. | 368 | Yes, up to four people may be proposed per position. However, this does not affect Award Fee. |
| 381 | Price | An expected fee of 7.5% suggests the government is taking on the responsibility of performance and retention, limiting a contractor's ability to manage fee, salary and meet the conditions of the J2 award plan. Would the government consider 1) establishing ceiling and floors and 2) removing the 7.5% fee expectation to allow the contractor to bid and manage to the expectation of the contract? | 381 | The Government expects Offerors to set their ceiling and floor pricing in the format of a proposed high and low price range. Expected fee is not referenced in this RFP. |
The Government's intent for an expected profit rate is to deter massive price discounts currently experienced. The Government is seeking accurate pricing rates that will entice and retain qualified personnel, and allow profit, while ensuring reasonable pricing to the government.
| 394 | SOW | Will the government please consider increasing the total hours for one FTE from 1860 to 1880? | 394 | No, the requirement is intended to remain at 1,860 hours per FTE. See final RFP for confirmation. | |
| 396 | Scorecard | Are offeror's expected to enter yes for more than one project value row in order to obtain the maximum amount of points available for this section? Or, should offeror's only enter Yes in the maximum contract value applicable to each of the three projects submitted? If the latter, should the total points available for this section total 4,500, instead of 9,000, since only three projects are expected to be identified for this section? | 396 | Yes; Offerors should enter yes for all rows that they meet, up to the maximum score. This will cumulatively equal the maximum points for that scored section. This method will keep the maximum score for the referenced section at 9,000 points. | |
| 401 | Task Order | Does the government intend to require awarded vendors to participate in a minimum number of TOs issued under the IDIQ contract? | 401 | The Government will require each IDIQ member to participate in at least one task order competition, with the expectation that an Offeror will compete in all. | |
| 403 | Price | Can the government please provide additional clarification regarding how fair and reasonable pricing will be determined? Will the government only evaluate the high-end rates provided for fair and reasonableness or will the government determine an average proposed cost between the high and low rates proposed to use as a basis of evaluation? If an Offeror's high price range is higher than a competitors, but their low rate is lower than the same competitor, how will the government determine fair and reasonableness in comparison? | 403 | The Government does not intend to share specific evaluation strategy. Technical solutions are solicited in this IDIQ competition, and submitted pricing volume high and low ranges are intended as data points against which later Task Order pricing volumes will be evaluated. The government will not disclose specific methods of comparison. | |
| 404 | Scorecard | Would the government consider adding a section and points for "Ancillary Support Products and Services" from OASIS and similar self-scoring exercises to capture relevant skillsets /capabilities that reflect the nature of the mission Clover must support? | 404 | No, the Government will not add a section or points for "Ancillary Support Products and Service," as it is not deemed applicable to CLOVER. | |
| 406 | Price | Will the government clarify why it requires that all costs associated with the CPM shall be rolled into the fully-burdened labor rates? This would limit the ability of the CPM to directly support relevant TOs if needed and may not align with contractor business practices. The RDAS PM was allowed to charge; it is unclear why the PMs for SBs would be unable to do so. | 406 | Each contract stands alone; therefore, we are not following the RDAS strategy/process for Clover. Contractor PMs perform oversight for personnel spanning multiple awarded Task Orders, wherever a vendor has won multiple. This makes their support most compatible with overhead management costs, rather than direct-charge and tracking of individual hours worked managing each TO. | |
| 407 | Price | 1. As it relates to the hourly rates for each labor category, is there a percentage range per skill level that the Government deems reasonable? | 407 | It is the responsibility of the Offeror to make this determination. | |
| 408 | Evaluation | 2. Related to Section M.8, what level of detail does the Government require in order for them to perform analysis of the proposer’s FBLR buildup? | 408 | The Government's intent for an expected profit rate is to deter massive price discounts currently experienced. The Government is seeking accurate pricing rates that will entice and retain qualified personnel, and allow profit, while ensuring reasonable pricing to the government. | |
| 409 | Price | "For each Work Service Category, the Government expects a low to high price range. " | |||
| Will the government penalize offerors who propose an extremely broad price range, with very low lows and very high highs? | 409 | High and low range estimates are expected to meet fair and reasonableness determinations at the IDIQ competition level (i.e., not artificially low or high compared to the market in order to "skip" this step at the IDIQ level). Submitted pricing data points will also speak to technical understanding of the requirement. |
The Government will not accept pricing that has not been deemed fair and reasonable.
| 410 | Price | "For each Work Service Category, the Government expects a low to high price range. " | |||
| Is there any guidance as to what the government would consider a realistic delta between offeror's low and high rates? For example, would a high rate that is 100% greater than the low rate be considered excessive? | 410 | No, it is incumbent upon each individual Offeror to develop their best proposal. | |||
| 413 | Scorecard | Will the government provide a minimum suggested score for proposing? This may reduce the amount of proposals NGA would have to consider, as well as give a baseline for Offerors to decide if they are capable of competing. | 413 | No, the Government will not provide a minimum suggested score. Award will be made to the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with fair and reasonable price. | |
| 423 | Task Order | Section states, "The individual Task Order rate(s) selected will then be locked for all current and future positions at the same WSC and skill level." Will the government include language to ensure that the escalation rate will still be applied to increase the "locked" rate? | 423 | The locked rate is applicable to each WSC and skill level, by year of performance within a Task Order. The Government does not plan to include additional language applying this escalation to the "locked rate at the Task Order level, as submitted rates for each year should factor in 2.1% escalation. | |
| 424 | Edit | Recommend Government include subcontract responsibility FAR 9.104-1, FAR 9.104-4, and subcontract clause FAR 44.204(a). | 424 | The Government will review and update as needed in the final RFP. See Section I and K clauses upon their release for full list of provision and clauses, in the final RFP. | |
| 425 | Edit | If the Government allows Offerors that do not have an approved purchasing system, we recommend the government include FAR 52.244-2 (consent to subcontract), FAR 15.404-3, DFARS 252-244-7001 (a), DFARS 252.244-7001 (c), FAR 52.204-10, FAR 52.216-7, FAR 15.403-4, and FAR 15.403-1 (b). | 425 | The Government will review and update as needed in the final RFP. See Section I and K clauses upon their release for full list of provision and clauses, in the final RFP. | |
| 430 | Price | Section states that “An escalation rate of 2.10% for all option years shall be proposed for all labor categories, and is applicable to all future Task Orders. Failure to incorporate this escalation rate shall result in an adjustment to this escalation rate.” During Industry Day, prospective offerors were advised that escalation rates outside of 2.1% could be proposed if justification was provided. Please clarify. | 430 | The Government directs the use of 2.1% escalation to level the playing field across all Offers, give the low and high end-range pricing approach. This answer supersedes all previous response on this issue. See Final RFP direction. | |
| 431 | SOW | Volume I General indicates that a Professional Employee Compensation Plan must be provided. We recognize this as a requirement of FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees,” incorporated in RFP Section L.1. FAR 52.222-46 utilizes the definition for professional employees provided in 29 CFR 541 and only requires the plan to contain information “for the professional employees who will work under the contract.” In the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division’s Field Operation Handbook, Section 22d, the three types of professional employees, learned, creative, and teaching are found to generally comprise the following: “law, medicine, theology, accounting, actuarial computation, engineering, architecture, teaching, various types of physical, chemical, and biological sciences, and pharmacy” for learned professionals; “music, writing, acting, and the graphic arts” for creative professionals; and “teaching, tutoring, instructing, and lecturing” for teaching professionals. |
Will the Government please indicate which of the labor categories in this RFP it has determined will be filled with professional employees and amend the requirement to confirm that only those categories need to be addressed in the compensation plan?
| If no position can be identified at the MATOC level, will the Government please consider removing the requirement to submit a compensation plan? | 431 | Reference to a Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be removed in the final RFP. | |||
| 432 | SOW | Volume I General indicates that a Professional Employee Compensation Plan and Uncompensated Overtime Policy must be provided. If the requirement for these documents persists, will the Government please provide a template or clarify the requirements for these documents? | 432 | References to a Professional Employee Compensation Plan and Uncompensated Overtime Policy will be removed in the final RFP. | |
| 434 | Task Order | Would government consider providing transition out plans for the existing work on the EMERALD contract? If not at the IDIQ level, recommend providing at the task order level to ensure successful transition in and transition out. | 434 | When available, the Government will provide Transition out plans for the EMERALD contract to assist the transition-in CLOVER vendor. | |
| 435 | SOW | GFE estimated for 65% of personnel. What is the governments intentions of work location and equipment for the remaining 35% of personnel? | 435 | The Government intends to specify at the Task Order level both the location of work and associated GFE that may be provided for work performed outside of an NGA facility. | |
| 436 | Scorecard | With an emphasis placed on incentivizing staff retention, recommend adding points to the self score sheet for favorable previous year's voluntary retention rate (exceeding 90%). | 436 | The Government appreciates your recommendation. The scoring will remain unchanged for this element in Attachment J.18, Self-Scoring Sheet. | |
| 438 | Task Order | Please elaborate on the intent of the Government with regard to the terms "Best case" and "Worse case" scenarios. Generally speaking, the term of transition is specified in the task order as solicited. | 438 | See SOW update at Section 3.3.4, Transition. The "best case scenario" is clear overlap between transition-out and transition-in (within 3 months of IDIQ award). The "worst case scenario" is no overlap (within 2 weeks of task order award). | |
| 440 | Scorecard | A single Emerald Task Order while Highly Relevant is not sufficient to score a maximum score on the self scoring sheet as it cannot map to the all of one of the WSC set of requirements and in some cases over laps between 2 WSCs. | |||
| Please allow offerors to cite a whole IDIQ using the totality of all tasks awarded and mapped to the SOW for CLOVER instead of individual Task Orders for the WSC Citations. | 440 | The Government allows a multiple-award IDIQ, single-award IDIQ, individual Task Order, or standalone contract to be referenced as a Project. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to properly document their experience for the supporting documentation they submit. | |||
| 443 | Scorecard | Scoring for each WCS 1,2,&3 cited relevant contracts that is a |
TS/SCI Contract = 500 points TS Contract = 250 points
| Secret Contract = 100 points | 443 | The Government appreciates your recommendation. The scoring for classified contract support will remain consistent with scoring earned by unclassified contract support experience. | |||
| 450 | SOW | Will the Government consider amending the SOW to add some systems integration responsibility to Program Management tasks to enable better systems integration, by developing Working Group and Working IPT (WG and WIPT) Plans which include identifying stakeholder (participation at what level(s); battle rhythms of internal and external coordination with frequency, status reporting to PM, staff meetings, working group and engineering tag ups/ TEMS, program action items, OPRs, due dates, timelines which tie into the Lifecycle Management. | 450 | Thank you for your recommendations. The SOW will not change to include the requested additions. | |
| 451 | SOW | The SOW states that details will be provided in the TO's. | |||
| Will this change the current status of Offeror's SF 328s, and will Offerors require a Technology Plan and be subject to ITARS? | 451 | Certain task orders may require ITARS compliance, thus impacting SF 328s. This will be defined at the Task Order competition level. | |||
| 452 | Security | Please provide a Draft DD254 prior to the release of the final RFP. | 452 | The Government will provide a template with the final RFP. | |
| 453 | SOW | Will additional access requirements be processed by the customer or the Offeror? | 453 | NGA grants additional accesses. The Contractor FSO submits required paperwork, and the Government will process. | |
| 454 | Submission | SF328 and KMP's are they required to be submitted with Proposal, or after award? If after reward will this be transmitted via security channels as requested? | 454 | SF-328 and Key-Personnel Master Plan submissions are required to be submitted with proposal. | |
| 455 | Submission | May a letter from and Offeror's ISO Registrar indicating recent registration to the ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Standard be used in place of the certificate of registration if the certificate is still in the cycle of being printed and processed by the registrar at the time of bid submission? | 455 | Yes, a letter from an Offeror's ISO Registrar indicating recent ISO 9001:2015 registration may be used in place of a pending certificate of registration. Submit this documentation with your proposal. Final certificate of registration may be provided prior to award, if applicable. | |
| 456 | Scorecard | At this time there are three companies registered in the USA that have any level of CMMI-ACQ they are Buchanan & Edwards, Kawasaki Rail Car, and Linguist according to the CMMI Institute website. | |||
| Please remove as a scoring attribute. | 456 | Scoring for a certification that is not commonly available will still remain on the Self-Scoring Sheet, even if no Offeror meets this factor. | |||
| 458 | Price | "ODCs and travel will be cost reimbursable/no fee." The J.9 Travel NTE instructions states that $50,000 will be used as the NTE amount for all proposals. Is this the total amount across the entire period of performance, or an annual amount? Is there an NTE amount for ODCs? | 458 | The $50,000 Travel NTE is set annually, for each respective Travel CLIN. Travel is included as an Other Direct Cost, and is therefore captured under the same CLIN and guidance. | |
| 459 | Price | Does the government intend to provide maximum rates by labor category in "Section J, Attachment X" as implied by this paragraph? If so, will these rates align with the on-site and off-site categories outlined in the J.3 Labor Rate Matrix? | 459 | The Government does not intend to provide maximum rates, nor rates by labor category. The Government expects low and high end rates to be provided in each Offeror's proposal, by WSC, category, and skill level. | |
| 460 | Price | The DRFP requests a low to high price range for each Work Service Category. In order to better bound pricing, will the government provide better definition of labor mix and experience requirements by skill level? Currently the skill definitions provided in J.4 lack any definition in terms of years of experience and labor mix (FTE counts by skill level) is not provided. Without better definition, the government will likely receive a very wide array of pricing which will make it difficult to conduct the price evaluation. | 460 | The Government's intent is not to artificially bound pricing. Rather, NGA intends to let industry assess their own pricing strategy to provide competitive staffing methods and the prompt staffing and retention of qualified personnel. See response to Question 409. | |
| 461 | SOW | For an IDIQ award, is the contractor required to be in position to provide support at all three locations listed (NCE, NCW, Denver), or any combination of locations to include a single location? | 461 | Yes. An IDIQ prime is expected to be able to fill positions at any combination of locations. | |
| 462 | OCI | "This OCI provision applies to the Prime contractor and Subcontractors, as well as parent companies and their wholly-owned subsidiaries." Does this statement mean that a parent company over a division or subsidiary that conducts NGA development, sustainment, or maintenance work is prohibited from participating on CLOVER as a prime or a subcontractor, even if the work would be conducted in a separate company division or subsidiary? | 462 | Yes. Strict OCI compliance applies to development work performed by one division / subsidiary of a company in support of NGA. | |
| 474 | SCIF | Is there a requirement to be able to safeguard in the Contractor’s facility? | 474 | Yes, there is a requirement to safeguard files if offsite work includes Classified information. See Draft DD254. | |
| 476 | Security | In Section L.11.4.1, the Government states, "The Offeror’s Security Volume shall include the following:" There is no information following the ":". Please confirm if the following paragraphs at the same level are the information that follows or not. | 476 | The language cited in Section L.11.4.1 points to the requirements listed in the following sections, L.11.4.2 and L.11.4.3. See required information to be included in the Security Volume under each of those listed sections. See Final RFP as well. | |
| 483 | SOW | Please confirm if the CDRL due dates are based on Contract award (F.5 reflects Award + 30) or if the due dates are by the 15th (G.3.f. "Contract Data Requirements List are due together by the 15 of the following month") | 483 | Currently, invoices are due on the 15th of each month for Program Management purposes. CDRLs are due based on contract award date. See Final RFP for correction at G.3(f). | |
| 487 | SOW | Section G.3.h states, "Contractor should follow-up to receive confirmation of receipt before noting the task as completed and timely." If the contractor requests a receipt, but does not receive one, please provide a date by which the deliverables are deemed acceptable and submitted on time. | 487 | The Government requests that the vendor follow up for confirmation of receipt until it is received. Some files are bounced back due to file size or security errors, without notice to the parties. | |
| 491 | Price | Section G.15 states there shall be no co-mingling of costs between task orders. Will the Government provide an example of costs that should not be co-mingled? | 491 | The Government does not plan to provide an example of costs that should not be co-mingled. Instead, note that Invoices shall be independent to the CLIN and month of performance for each Task Order. | |
| 492 | SOW | Is Government property currently in use on EMERALD? If so, will the Government provide the property listing? | 492 | Government Furnished Property (GFP) has been provided on EMERALD where customers have funding and a driving performance need. The Government will not provide a list of GFP used on the previous contract, as it is no indication of similar requirements on CLOVER. | |
| 493 | Key Personnel | Section H.2.b states, "If the contractor is unable to keep key personnel on for the first twelve months negative past performance will be annotated in the associated task order PAR. " As Virginia is a right-to-work state with at will employment, the contractor has no control over personal decisions. Since the Government is already penalizing turnover in the Award Fee Plan, recommend that the Government remove this additional penalty. | 493 | The Award Fee plan provides incentives for achievement that is above and beyond satisfactory performance, and which particularly benefits the Government. Thus turnover is not penalized, and rather only rewarded. Only one penalty is applied, per Section H.2(b). | |
| 495 | SOW | Section H.8 states, "The above action must be taken by the Contractor within twenty-four (24) hours of cessation of this contract, or of cessation of the individual Contractor personnel's involvement with this contract." Does this mean that the contractor shall have access to PeopleSoft? | 495 | See Note in preceding sentence, which clarifies your question. |
"(NOTE: Either the Contractor, Contractor's supervisor, or the NGA Contracting Officer or COR, may disable the Contractor's AIS system/network account(s) by contacting and informing the NGA Operational Help Desk (1-800-455-0899) of the Contractor's name, date of the Contractor's departure, and identity of any AIS system/network accounts in which the Contractor had access.)"
| 497 | Task Order | H.15 states, "Only Past Performance on CLOVER task orders will be used to make the determination to preclude a company from competing for future task order awards." Since CLOVER may not have three (3) years of past performance when the task orders are issued, recommend including the predecessor contract, EMERALD. | 497 | The Government's intent is that for new work task order competitions (any above the current solicited 10 Task Orders), only CLOVER Past Performance information will be utilized. This will apply regardless of number of years (after Base Year) of CLOVER performance to date. |
| 498 | Prime | Section L.11.3.1 states, "at least two of the past performance submissions must be from the Prime Contractor working as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor." Since the Government generally does not have insight into the work of subcontractors, how will the Government verify the work of a subcontractor's past performance? | 498 | The Government will verify subcontractor past performance using Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment J.20, and by contact with provided Government and/or Prime POCs. See latest Attachment J.18 Self Scoring Sheet for Prime/non-Prime submission clarifications. See also Attachment J.20, Past Performance Questionnaire, upon release. |
| 501 | OCI | In accordance with FAR 9.505-1, contractors providing systems engineering and technical direction for a system shall not "(2) Be a subcontractor or consultant to a supplier of the system or any of its major components." Will NGA require affirmation that each CLOVER Prime and Subcontractors shall comply with this requirement? If so, where should the contractor affirm compliance? | 501 | Yes, NGA will require affirmation that each CLOVER Prime and Subcontractor shall comply with requirements of FAR 9.505-1. This is conducted on the OCI Compliance form in Volume I. |
| 503 | JV | Please provide the names of the Contractor Support company(is) to ensure that these contractors are teaming on CLOVER. | 503 | See Attendee/Interested Parties list released previously on GPE and ARC for company information of those self-identified as interested in the CLOVER opportunity. |
| 504 | Scorecard | The note located under Section L.8.1.2 states, "NOTE: This solicitation instructs Offerors to provide support documentation for practically all scored evaluation criteria. Some subsections of Section L require that an Offeror shall provide a particular form of documentation for validation purposes (see Table L.X). For other subsections of Section L, Offerors may provide whatever official; verifiable documentation is necessary to validate any pass/fail or scored evaluation criteria being claimed (See Table L.X.)...." Please provide the referenced Tables within Section L. | 504 | The requested Tables will be provided within Section in the final RFP, and tie to the final Self-Scoring Sheet (Attachment J.18) at RFP release. |
| 505 | Submission | Section L.9.1 states ". The Offeror shall include all five (5) separate electronic proposal volumes and supporting documents listed in L.9.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT TABLE onto a single DVD+R disk (marked Original) plus a single duplicate copy of the original DVD+R disk (marked Copy) for a total of 2 DVD+R disks with all files in an uncompressed native format." Will the Government please confirm if the Price volume is to be included as the reference is to five (5) proposal volumes and CLOVER contains six (6) or if Price, Volume 6 should be separate as required in Section L.10.2, ". Pricing information shall only be contained in the Price Volume." | 505 | Yes, the Price volume is to be included, and is a separate volume. All volumes should be submitted in accordance with J.18 Attachment update. See final RFP at Section L. |
| 516 | Submission | Section L.11.1.5 requires, "Table of Contents: A master table of contents for the entire proposal, including a compliance matrix that ties the contents to Section L requirements" Please confirm whether or not there is a link requirements within the master table of contents. | 516 | Yes, there is a requirements link within the master table of contents. Linking file instruction will be cleaned up to provide greater clarity on linking within the final RFP. |
| 517 | Submission | Please provide the location of justification documents for relevant experience. | 517 | See document breakout in Attachment J.18 update for location of justification documents for relevant experience. |
| 529 | OCI | In accordance with FAR 9.505-1, contractors providing systems engineering and technical direction for a system shall not "(2) Be a subcontractor or consultant to a supplier of the system or any of its major components." Will the Government require affirmation that each CLOVER Prime and Subcontractors comply with this requirement? If so, where should contractors include this affirmation? | 529 | The Government will require affirmation that each CLOVER Prime and Subcontractor complies with the requirement at FAR 9.505-1. Offerors should complete OCI Compliance form attachment to the final RFP. |
| 531 | Vacancy | The award fee plan does not provide for any excused turnover. There are situations over which the Contractor has no control, e.g., employee death or disability. Will the Government add reasonable allowances for circumstance over which the Contractor has no control? | 531 | Yes; reasonable allowances for circumstances outside of the Contractor's control will be added to the Award Fee Plan. |
| 538 | Telework | This Section states, "All costs associated with the CPM and other contractor costs of doing business shall be rolled into the fully-burdened labor rates." This statement appears to conflict with F4. Telework, which states in part under Program Management Office (PMO) Support, "Unclassified PMO work (e.g. contracts, finance, program security, subcontract management, staffing and program management, or program manager) may be performed via telecommuting and billed to the task order without prior COR/GPOC coordination and CO approval." Please reconcile this apparent disconnect. | 538 | Section F.4 language applies only to Government-funded, approved telework. Contractor Project Managers cannot be direct-charged, but can be billed to the Task Order. |
| 539 | Scope | Section 1.0 (U) Introduction states, "This effort redefines the EMERALD program approach and encompasses a similar, but not identical, scope." This appears to imply that some of EMERALD's current scope may not be in CLOVER? If so, will the Government please specify what part of the EMERALD scope will not be in CLOVER? | 539 | The overall scope of work is the same between EMERALD and CLOVER. Approach may vary. See Task Order competition SOWs. |
| 540 | SOW | Section H.3.c states, "In the alternative, the Government may terminate the position and de-scope from the original awarded task order effort, or require consideration in the form of a credit or repayment for services not rendered against the total 1,860 FTE hour requirement. "SOW Section 3.5.2.1 states, "No more than 1,860 hours of support will be required or accepted from each individual FTE position." However, Section 1.2 (U) Approach references "contractor full-time equivalents (CFTEs)." Please clarify if the Government will be requiring an 1,860 FTE or using the contractor FTE (CFTE). | 540 | The approved number of hours is 1,860 per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)billet. |
| 542 | SOW | Please clarify if deliverables are due calendar or business days | 542 | Deliverables are driven by Calendar Days. |
| 544 | SOW | Section 3.5.2.1 (U) Government-Defined refers to one FTE position. Please clarify if the position referenced is Position ID or Position Description. | 544 | The FTE position referenced in Section 3.5.2.1 is Position ID. |
| 545 | Foreign Location | Section 4.5 references contact with foreign persons both domestically and abroad. Will the Government confirm the requirement for CLOVER Primes and subcontractors to have ITAR registrations to support of the scope under CLOVER? | 545 | An ITAR is required whenever a vendor makes contact with a foreign person. There are Commonwealth liaison officers within NGA spaces. Depending on the nature of work being performed, professional may occur, which would require an ITAR registration. |
| 548 | OCI | Industry Day Chart #27 notes that Prime Bidders are required to submit an OCI Disclosure and Analysis form for the IDIQ Contract. There is no requirement in Section L or Section M for this form. Will the Government clarify? | 548 | OCI forms are submitted per instructions in Volume I. |
| 550 | Task Order | Within the industry day, NGA presented that G, IA, HD, SI and N2W fall within the scope of Task Order 1. However, the description of services/missions supported only includes those of the G and IA. Will the Government clarify what scope pertaining to HD, SI and N2W fall within the scope of this Task Order? Note that the description for the Associate Director of Support task order includes description that includes HD and SI. | 550 | Section B scope is high-level and not all-inclusive. Task Order scope will be further defined within the individual task order competitions. |
| 551 | Task Order | This paragraph includes reference to the GEOINT Enterprise and how support has generally stayed the same. Support to the GEOINT Enterprise was included within TO 1. Please clarify which scope associated with G is included within this Task Order. | 551 | Section B scope is high-level and not all-inclusive. Task Order scope will be further defined within the individual task order competitions. |
| 552 | Task Order | The scope of Task Order 2 seems to overlap with the scope of Task Order 7 (CIO-T-IP) as the IPOs are integrated program offices that span CIO-T and DO mission sets and personnel. Please clarify how the scope of these Task Orders differ. | 552 | Section B scope is high-level and not all-inclusive. Task Order scope will be further defined within the individual task order competitions. |
| 558 | Price | The RFP is dictating a 2.1% escalation rate for option years for IDIQ and subsequent task orders. If a company's DCAA Approved Rates include a 2.4% escalation rate, is the company not required to use that as a basis for future year rate buildup? | 558 | DCAA approved rates are specific to the applicable contract. The Government reserves the right to set an escalation rate for our requirement. The Offeror is not required to use DCAA rates for future year rate buildup. |
| 560 | SOW | This section, specifically the 2nd sentence, as written requires resumes to be submitted within the 5 days prior to assignment to the contract and thereafter, at request of the COR. Currently, on EMERALD, the only resumes that are required to be submitted in advance are Key Personnel Resumes; otherwise resumes are submitted only if requested by the COR. Is the Government requiring submission of all contractor employee resumes in the 5 days preceding start on contract? | 560 | Resumes for non-Key Personnel are only required at the request of the CO or COR. This is clear in RFP Section C.3, SOW. |
| 562 | SOW | As part of the EMERALD contract, the delivery of Weekly Activity Reports has placed a tremendous amount of work and effort on the individuals supporting the specific task order and the small business personnel tasked with creating and distributing the WAR. This is especially true when coupled with a monthly and quarterly activity report and review. Recommend that the government remove this as a contract deliverable and allow individual Technical Monitors to define reporting requirements at the weekly level. | 562 | Weekly Activity Reports are a common tool used by the federal government, and will be required. |
| 563 | SOW | A Program Management Plan is required at Award +30 days. One of the most important aspects of providing support to NGA is the ability to manage prime and subcontractor personnel. How is the government assessing a small businesses ability to manage task orders of up to 90 personnel prior to awarding them a contract? | 563 | The Government will assess capability through evaluation of supporting documentation that is provided as part of the Offeror's proposal. |
| 564 | SOW | A Transition Plan is required at Award +10 days. Another important aspect of providing support to NGA is the ability to transition a task order. How is the government assessing a small businesses ability to transition large task orders of up to 90 personnel prior to awarding them a contract? | 564 | See response to Question 563. |
| 565 | Task Order | (RFP Section F.2) Last para states that task order awarded Period of Performance cannot exceed 12 months. Should this be "not to exceed 12 months past the base ordering period"? | 565 | No. This paragraph states that a single period of performance cannot exceed 12 months for a Fixed Price Level of Effort contract. |
| 566 | SOW | (RFP Section F.3, Place of Performance, Pg. 12) Three locations are listed in this section. The SOW has four locations; the extra one is “Other NGA locations, as required.” Please clarify what other NGA locations may be utilized in performance of this contract. This is critical information for IDIQ pricing and TO level bid decisions. | 566 | Particular place of performance is determined at the individual requirement level, and cannot be distinguished at this time. See Task Order competition SOWs. |
| 568 | SOW | (RFP Section F.5, and SOW Section 3.4) The "Deliverables" tables do not distinguish between deliverables at IDIQ and Task Order level. Will the Government clarify by modifying first submission to include IDIQ or Task Order prior to "Award + X days"? | 568 | The Government will modify first submission for Deliverables Tables in SOW Section 3.4 to include IDIQ or Task Order award driver, for "Award + X days" deadlines. See Final RFP. |
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 .