Attachment_24_-_Q&A_Document.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AM&E Security Cooperation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ0034-19-R-0142
- Issued by
- DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for Assessment, Monitoring, and Evaluation (AM&E) Security Cooperation Support Services. The solicitation will be issued by the Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Service Acquisition Directorate on behalf of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Defense Security Cooperation Agency. The solicitation number is HQ0034-19-R-0142 and seeks multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts with a period of performance of five years to provide services supporting implementation of 2017 National Defense Authorization Act reforms to security cooperation programs. Evaluation will utilize best value tradeoff under FAR Part 15. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541990. Questions regarding this notice must be received by April 5, 2019 though no response is required. Interested parties should monitor the Federal Business Opportunities website for solicitation documents and amendments.
Attachment 24 Q&A Document
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
AM&E Security Cooperation has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP & Attachments
| Question No. | Reference | Question Category (Contract or Technical) | Functional Category | Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | Past Performance Questionnaire | Contract | Due to time constraints, our company utilized and sent out the PPQ template provided with the original solicitation on June 6, 2019 prior to the amended PPQ posted on July 3. Would the Government please consider the original PPQ template as compliant for our proposal submission? | Yes, The Government will accept the original PPQ template or revised PPQ template. | ||
| 2 | Question 93/Solicitation | Contract | In regard to Question 93 posted in the Q&A, we have been informed that DSS does not provide FCL letters anymore and that the ISFD print out in Security Control should be sufficient. When contacting our DSS rep earlier today to request a letter, our representative provided the information you see below. Can you please advise on how best to proceed in light of this apparent disconnect between DSS and the response provided in Question 93? | Please refer to the revised solicitation amendment 0003. The Government will accept a letter from DSS if provided by the offeor or the Government will independently verify that the Offeor holds the appropriate security clearance in the DSS database. | ||
| 3 | Attachment 9, Task Order 1 CLIN Structure | Contract | The CLIN table in Attachment 9 appears to have inconsistent PoPs. For example, CLIN 0001 specifies a full 1 year period of performance and a unit of 12 months, and states a period of performance from September 16, 2019 - September 15, 2020. Similarly CLIN 0004 specifies a Period of Performance from October 16, 2019 - September 15, 2020. This would seem to suggest that CLIN 0001 is intended to cover a ramp up period for the FFP support provided under PWS 5.2, while CLIN 0004 should be the remainder of the base year, following the ramp up period. If this assumption is correct, and taking into account the 60-day ramp up period detailed in PWS para 1.6.18.2 Mobilization / Registration, CLIN 0001 should specify a quantity of 2 months, and a period of performance from September 16, 2019 - November 15, 2019, and CLIN 0004 should specificy a quantity of 10 months, and a period of performance from November 16, 2019 - September 15, 2020. Will the government please clarify the correct values for CLINs 0001 and 0004 for Task Order 1, under Attachment 9? | The values for CLINs 0001 and 0004 in Attachment 9 are revised per solicitation amendment 0003. Technical Exhibit 3, Workload Estimate, in Attachment 8 is revised per solicitation amendment 0003. | ||
| 4 | Attachment 9, Task Order 1 CLIN Structure | Contract | In Attachment 9, the LH hours listed do not coincide with the level of effort detailed in Technical Exhibit 3 of the PWS. For the Base Year, LHs specified in CLIN 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0006 total to 125,960 hours, or 67 FTEs @ 1,880 hours per FTE. Technical Exhibit 3 details 68 FTEs for the LH portion (PWS 5.1). Additionally, the LH specified in Attachment 9 for the option years (CLINs 1002/1003, 2002/2003, 3002/3003, and 4002/4003) each total 146,640 hours, or 78 FTEs @ 1,880 hours per FTE. This seems to include BOTH the level of effort for PWS task 5.1 (LH) and PWS task 5.2 (FFP). Will the government please clarify the inconsistencies between Technical Exhibit 3 and Attachment 9 and provide an updated Attachment 9, as appropriate? | See response to question #3. | ||
| 5 | Attachment 8, Task Order 1 | |||||
| Estimated Workload | Technical | 1 | The locations listed for some organizations seem to be incorrect. For example, the location for USARCENT is listed as Tampa, FL but it is actually Shaw AFB, SC; and NAVEUR is listed in Germany, when it is headquartered in Naples, Italy. Could the government confirm that the listed locations are correct, or provide the correct locations for the listed positions? | The locations are adjusted in the current workforce estimates at the state and country level. Technical Exhibit 3, Workload Estimate, in Attachment 8 is revised per solicitation amendment 0003. | ||
| 6 | Attachment_23_-_Q&A_Document AND HQ0034-19-R-0142_Amendment_0002 | Contract | The Attachment 23 Q&A Document states that the RFQ's due date is 2:00pm on Friday, July 12, 2019, but Amendment 0002 states the due date is 4:00pm on Thursday, July 18, 2019. Will you please confirm what the new due date is? | In accordance with Amendment 0002, the due date is 4:00pm on Thursday, July 18, 2019. | ||
| 7 | DD254 | Contract | In the last Amendment for this solicitation (issued on July 3rd), the Government states that a DD254 is provided as Attachment 2. However, this attachment was not included in the updated RFP docs on FBO. |
Please release the DD254 under a separate modification so Offerors have access.
| Please refer to Amendment 0003 for Attachment 02. | |||||
| 8 | Attachment 23 – Question #38 | Contract | The Government’s response states that Government will not allow proprietary statements, security markings and page numbers to be placed within the 1” margin. In over 10 years of responding to Government proposals, we have never seen this restriction. This last-minute change will require major reformatting to the already drafted proposals. Request the Government allow for these, non-evaluated page markings be allowed in the margin in line with all other Government proposals. | Please refer to the solicitation instructions in accordance with A.1.4.1. which specifies" Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers shall be placed within the defined margin area." | |
| 9 | Attachment 23 – Question #46 | Contract | The Government’s response did not answer the question about the lack of clarity in the RFP. Does the Government require submissions in both Word and PDF? | Please refer to Amendment 0003. Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Adobe (.PDF), or MS Word 2010. | |
| 10 | Attachment 23 – Question #93 | Contract | Defense Security Service does not issue letters verifying Facility Clearances (FCLs). The only approved method for verifying FCLs is via the Government’s/DSS’s database. Request the Government discuss this requirement with their SSO and remove the requirement for offerors to provide a letter from DSS. Recommend the RFP require offerors to provide a statement about their FCL level and provide their CAGE code. The Government’s SSO can use this CAGE to verify FCLs. This is the only DSS-approved method to verify an offeror’s FCL. | See response to question #2. | |
| 11 | Attachment 23 – Question #122 | Technical | This response does not have an associated RFP reference. This omission in the Government’s answer adds ambiguity. TO PWSs from TO2 and 3 and answers to other questions conflict with this response. Please clarify if this answer responds to FTEs in TO1. | The offeror did not provide a solicitation/PWS reference when the question was submitted. However, the Government identified this language in PWS Section 1.6.7 in Attachment 11, which is for Task Order 2. This language is not applicable to Attachment 8, Task Order 1 - AM&E PWS. | |
| 12 | Attachment 23 – Question #237 | Technical | 2 | This response states “with the understand that weekly progress meetings will be conducted in the DISCS/NCR office.” This is a new requirement being implemented via response and not the included in the PWS. To properly estimate level of effort, this requirement needs more specificity. It should also be added to the PWS with more details. Can the offeror meet this weekly meeting requirement via telecon to allow for lower cost coordination if using staff outside the NCR? If these meetings must be attended in person by the offeror’s staff, this involves a notable increase in hours to travel to/attend these meetings. It also may preclude offerors proposing to use staff from outside the NCR for curriculum development. If these meetings must involve the Curriculum Developer, must these in-person meetings be conducted weekly over the entire first year period of performance? How about option years? Must the Program Manager also attend these in-person meetings? | Weekly progress meetings was inaccurately stated in response #237. There is a requirement for monthly activity/status reports (Technical Exhibit 2: Deliverables Schedule). There is an expectation that the development team will work closely with the DISCS faculty during development. This can typically be done via teleconference but may also require in person meetings. Those meetings will be conducted at the DISCS NCR or WPAFB campus and travel reimbursement would be authorized when in accordance with contract provisions per the FAR. |
| 13 | Attachment 23 – Question #278 and TO 2 para 5.3.1 | Technical | 2 | The question asked how many staff assistance visits would be conducted during the base year and option years. The answer and PWS modification did not answer this question. Does the statement “A minimum of 5 and maximum of 10 staff assistance visits of 3 days are planned.” refer to each year of performance? | Yes. “[Each year of performance] a minimum of 5 and maximum of 10 staff assistance visits of 3 days are planned.” |
| 14 | Attachment 8- Task Order 1AM&E SME PWS Revised, Technical Exhibit 3, Estimated Workload Data, Base Period, page 22. Attachment 9, Task Order 1 CLIN Structure, Revised, CLIN 0004 | Contract | The PWS Workload Data for the Base Year does not contain any labor for CLIN 0004, but the revised CLIN Structure requires pricing for CLIN 0004 on a firm fixed price basis for 12 months. Please clarify whether the labor for CLIN 0004 is the same as CLIN 0001, and whether it should be for 11 months, as indicated for the period of performance of October 16, 2019 to September 15, 2020 for CLIN 0004. | See response to question #3. | |
| 15 | Attachment 8- Task Order 1AM&E SME PWS Revised, Technical Exhibit 3, Estimated Workload Data, Base Period, page 22. Attachment 9, Task Order 1 CLIN Structure, Revised, CLIN 0005. | Contract | The PWS Workload data for CLIN 0005 in the Base Year indicates a requirement of 11 FTEs, which would correspond to 20,680 hours. However, the revised CLIN Structure requires pricing for 17,860 hours for CLIN 0005. Please clarify the discrepancy between these two labor hour requirements and the correct number of hours being requested for CLIN 0005. | 11 FTEs is correct. Attachment 9 is revised per solicitation amendment 0003. | |
| 16 | Attachment 8- Task Order 1AM&E SME PWS Revised, Technical Exhibit 3, Estimated Workload Data, Base Period, page 22. Attachment 9, Task Order 1 CLIN Structure, Revised, CLIN 0006. | Contract | The PWS Workload data for CLIN 0006 in the Base Year indicates a requirement of 2 FTEs, which would correspond to 3,760 hours. However, the revised CLIN Structure requires pricing for 4,700 hours and for a period of performance of 11 months. Please clarify the discrepancy between these two labor hour requirements and the correct number of hours being requested for CLIN 0006. | 3760 LH is correct. The POP is set to correspond with the fiscal year and funding availability. Attachment 9 is revised per solicitation amendment 0003. | |
| 17 | Attachment 8- Task Order 1AM&E SME PWS Revised, Technical Exhibit 3, Estimated Workload Data, Option Periods 1, 2, 3, and 4, pages 23-26. Attachment 9, Task Order 1 CLIN Structure, Revised, CLINs 1002/2002/3002/4002. | Contract | The PWS Workload data for CLINs 1002/2002/3002/4002 indicates a requirement of 48 FTEs for each option period, which would correspond to 90,240 hours for each option period CLIN. However, the Revised CLIN Structure for CLINs 1002/2002/3002/4002 requires pricing for 109,040 hours in each option period, equivalent to 58 FTEs. Please clarify the discrepancy between these two labor requirements in each option period, and the correct number of hours being requested for CLINs 1002/2002/3002/4002. | These CLINS represent the combined labor hours of 0002 and 0005 totaling 92,120. Attachment 9 is revised per solicitation amendment 0003. | |
| 18 | F. Price Factor | Contract | Can the government please define the man year hours assumed for an FTE in Task Order 1? | The Full Time Equivalent man year is defined as 1880. | |
| 19 | Q&A, Question 79 | Contract | This answer says a consolidated narrative to past performance is not allowed, but please confirm that we can have a brief introduction to the three references as long as the volume does not exceed the 20 page limit | Question #79 and the response to question #79 in Attachment 23 - Q&A Document, didn’t reference a narrative. However, question #84 in Attachment 23 - Q&A Document, addressed the narrative. Please see the response to question #84 in Attachment 23 - Q&A Document associated with solicitation amendment 0002. | |
| 20 | Q&A, Questions 135 and 136 | Contract | These questions asked if the transition plan was outside of page count, but the revised language does not specify. Please confirm whether the plan is outside of count. | No, the transition plan is not outside of the page limitations outlined in the solicitation. | |
| 21 | Q&A, Question 93 | Contract | The answer specified that an ISFD report will not meet the pass/fail threshold for the Security Volume. Since the ISFD report is not authorized, and DSS no longer issues 381-R’s, please clarify what sort of letter from DSS will meet the requirement. What information must be included in the letter that is not in an ISFD report? | See response to question #2. | |
| 22 | Attachment 9 Task Order 1 CLIN Structure | Contract | CLIN 0004 duplicates CLIN 0001 in scope and duration. Pricing both CLINS would duplicate pricing for the same FTEs. How should CLIN 0001 vs 0004 be priced to prevent duplication? | See response to question #3. | |
| 23 | Attachment 9 Task Order 1 CLIN Structure | Contract | CLIN 0005 labor hours only support 9.5 FTE but PWS Technical Exhibit 3 Workload Data requires 11 FTE. What is the labor hours for CLIN 0005? | See response to question #15. | |
| 24 | Attachment 9 Task Order 1 CLIN Structure | Contract | CLIN 0006 labor hours support 2.5 FTE but PWS Technical Exhibit 3 Workload Data requires 2 FTE. What is the labor hours for CLIN 0006? | 2 FTEs is correct. Attachment 09 is revised per solicitation amendment 0003. | |
| 25 | Attachment 9 Task Order 1 CLIN Structure | Contract | CLINs 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002 each allocate 10 FTE more in hours than required in the PWS Technical Exhibit 3 Workload Data. What is the labor hours 90,240 or 109,040? | See response to question #17. | |
| 26 | PWS Technical Exhibit Estimated Workload Data | Technical | 1 | The PWS states that the contractor shall provide support for the listed commands at the seven (7) listed locations. The locations listed suggest that support to Army/Navy/Air Force/USMC/SOCOM component commands should be co-located with the respective Geographic Combatant Command. |
If this is true, the USARAF should be changed and listed as Germany as this is the location of AFRICOM. Does the Government intend to change this location to Germany?
Alternatively if this is NOT true and support is to be embedded at each component command's actual location, then there are 24 locations that must be listed in the PWS. We have provided a separate spreadsheet, titled "LOCATIONS" identifying the mismatched locations by command as described below:
(1) NORTHCOM - 4 of 5 commands are not located in Colorado Springs, CO (Houston, TX; New Orleans, LA; Norfolk, VA; Panama City, FL).
(2) EUCOM/AFRICOM - 4 of 8 commands are not located in Stuttgart, GE. (Naples, Italy; Vincenza, Italy; Ramstein, GE; Weisbaden, GE).
(3) INDOPACOM - 3 commands of 5 are not located on MCB Camp H.M. Smith (Pearl Harbor Station (2 commands) and Fort Shaffter (1 command)).
(4) SOUTHCOM 4 of 5 commands are not located in Miami.(Homestead, FL; Houston, TX; Mayport, FL; Tucsan, AZ)
(5) CENTCOM - 3 of 5 commands are not located in Tampa, FL (Columbia, SC (2 commands) and Manama, Bahrain (1 command))
This effects staffing, transition planning, recruiting and pricing and must be resolved. A) What are the specific locations that the analysts are expected to work for each service/SOCOM component support command? B) Can the contractor propose colocating these support analysts at the Geographic Comabant Command HQ to simplify staffing and support? We have adjusted location in the current workforce estimates at the state and country level. Please refer to the revised Estimated Workload Data in amendment 0003.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .