ABS RFP Q A 3 May 10.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Airborne Sensor Program (ABS)
- Solicitation number
- HQ0147-09-R-0006
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Response | |
| 1 | The government’s responses to questions 54 and 55 and the issuance of Amendment 0001, clearly indicate that the government will use the amounts stated in the Solicitation for Material and Travel when calculating the Total Evaluated Probable Cost. Material and Travel cost comprise a large percentage of the contract total cost as indicated in the government provided Material and Travel amounts. Strategic approaches between offerors can result in lower or higher Material and Travel cost. Using the same Material and Travel cost for all offerors does not allow for an accurate evaluated price between offerors. We request that the government reconsider having offerors provide estimated program Material and Travel cost. If the government does not change the evaluation criteria, can the government explain how its approach will result in an accurate, comparable Total Evaluated Probable Cost between offerors? | The Material and Travel CLINs are cost reimbursable and are not considered to be the basis for determining a winner for the award. The amounts provided by the government for travel and material are IDIQ ceilings for solicitation purposes and should have no bearing on the contractors "strategic approach." |
| 2 | The government’s responses to questions 54 and 55 and the issuance of Amendment 0001, clearly indicate that the government will use the amounts stated in the Solicitation for Material and Travel when calculating the Total Evaluated Probable Cost. In contrast, in para 3.3.2 of Section L, the government requires offerors to provide estimated Material and Travel costs in their Improvement & Modernization (I&M) and Technology Development Sample Task responses. I&M / Technology Development is CLIN 0012 which is CPFF and is included in the Total Evaluated Probable Cost. Can the government explain why it is using two different methodologies for evaluating Material and Travel cost? | Section L, 3.3.2, includes direction on what should be included in the technical BOEs, but does not address cost. Offerors are NOT required to provide cost/price data for the Material and/or Travel CLINs. However, Material and Travel information shall be included in the BOEs to assist the technical team in their evaluation. Cost savings in Material and Travel, if any, should be explained in the narrative of the Technical Volume as part of the Offeror's approach. The BOE instructions, as included in the Cost/Price instructions, are not applicable to the Material and Travel CLINs, as those CLINs are cost reimbursable, and will be awarded at the NTE amounts listed in the CLIN descriptions. |
| 3 | FAR 15.304 requires that all factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance be stated clearly in the solicitation. Section M of the RFP details how the government intends to evaluate the proposals for the HALO effort, for the WASP effort, and for the entire ABS effort. However, the government has not defined the criteria which it will use to evaluate the winner of the entire ABS effort against the winners of the HALO effort and WASP effort. Instead, the government states in Section M and its response to question 50 that based on the SSA’s best value decision, either two contracts will be awarded or a single contract will be awarded for the entire ABS effort. As an example, if the scenario below occurred, what criteria would the SSA use to make its best value decision if it should award two separate contracts or a single ABS contract. | Proposals for the entire ABS effort will be evaluated by the same criteria as proposals for the HALO effort and proposals for the WASP effort. Your question did not provide the color and risk associated with Technical and Management subfactors which will be assessed in the government’s evaluation. Section M 4.0 states, "Color and proposal risk ratings will be assigned at the Technical and Management subfactor level." |
| 4 | The issuance of Amendment 1, Paragraph 4.0 of Section M continues to state evaluation Factors 1 (Technical) and 2 (Management) are of equal importance, with the remaining Factors 3 (Past and Present Performance) and 4 (Cost/Price) in descending order of importance. The three Technical Subfactors (Mission Support, Mission Assurance, and Technical Development) are listed in descending order of importance. The five Management Subfactors (Management Approach, Transition, Staffing, Facilities, and Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment) are all of equal importance. Color and proposal risk ratings will be assigned at the Technical and Management subfactor level while Past and Present Performance will receive an overall performance confidence rating. Since the government does not intend to roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating for Technical or Management, will the government please clarify the importance of each of the subfactors in relation to the overall evaluation of the proposal? | As stated in Section M., paragraph 4.0, Evaluation, “ All proposals received will be subject to technical, management, past and present performance and cost/price evaluation by a Technical Evaluation Team, a Performance Risk Assessment Group, and a Contract Evaluation Team. A color code rating technique will be used to evaluate the Technical and Management Proposals. The Cost/Price Proposal will not be given a color rating. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Evaluation Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, with the remaining Factors 3 and 4 in descending order of importance. Technical subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Management subfactors are all of equal importance. Color and proposal risk ratings will be assigned at the Technical and Management subfactor level. Past and Present Performance will receive an overall performance confidence rating. Cost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important that cost/price, but cost/price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection decision. |
| Proposal | Tech Subfactors | Mgmt Subfactors Past Performance Cost / Price | ||
| HALO | Green | Green | Very Good | $10M |
| WASP | Blue | Blue | Very Good | $10M |
| ABS | Purple | Purple | Very Good | $20M |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .