Attachment Q and As.pdf

Question # Page and section Question Answer

There are some discrepcies with the corporate experience question requirements under "response format" and "submission requirements". Can the government clarify which of the below descriptions they are looking for? Particular, is the recency requirement 3 years or 5? The corporate experience requirements are currently written as follows:

"A description of Corporate Experience for similar contracts and/or projects accomplished within the last 3 years. The description must include where, when, and for whom each similar contract and/or project was performed and a brief description of each contract and/or project, including the size, scope, dollar value, and period of performance" and

"In addition, firms should provide information on their company’s experience by providing information to support how the firm’s recent past performance (last 5 years) is relevant to the technical areas listed including the dollar value, period of performance, size and scope of the firm’s prior contracts"

Please see the amended sources sought document. The update has been highlighted.

Given the 12 detailed Technical Areas with multiple sub areas, would the Government be willing to apply the 8 page capabaility statement maximum length only to the capability statement responses to the 12 technical areas? The remaining corporate information and corporate Experiece can be limited to an additional 4 pages for a document max of 12 pages.

Please see the amended sources sought document. The update has been highlighted.

Is this a new requirement? If so, what's the perspective Period of Performance (PoP)?

If it's not a new requirement; who is the current incumbent?

This is not a new requirment. The current work is being performed by M.C. Dean.

Questions re: Past Performance / Corporate Experience Windows. Submission requirements states last five years for past performance and response format item #6 states last three years for Corporate Experience. Is it the Government’s intent to differentiate between past performance and corporate experience? If so, please confirm. In either case we suggest the Government establish a consistent window for both types of examples.

Please see the amended sources sought document. The update has been highlighted.

Should a respondent be unable to provide evidence of meeting those quantities identified in items 1a, 1c, 3a, 3,b, and 12a be eliminated from participating in this acquisition?

Doubtful that small business will be able to meet any of these requirements. In addition, experience in DPAS tethered to a 50k minimum component level seems somewhat arbitrary. Would a respondent having evidence with DPAS but only at a 40k component level be excluded from consideration?

If a respondant is not capapble of proividing evidence of meeting the quantities identified in 1a, 1c, 3a, 3b, and 12a the respondent is still encouraged to submit a response to this sources sought and a determination will be made based off of the submittal. If a respondent can provide DPAS at a 40k component level the respondent is encouraged to submit the response in their capability statement as this is for market research purposes only.

HQ003421R0011 Integrated Security Services for PFPA