ITMA_QA_-_Final_RFP_-_Amd_9_-_20180511_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ0147-16-R-0015
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
Q&A responses
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
| # | RFP / Attachment Subject | Page #, Paragraph Reference | Question / Comment | Response |
| 1 | General | Bidders were only recently notified that the Amendments were to be released 2 days subsequent to the notification. The extensive Amendments were released on a Friday evening with a 25 May due date; after 5 months with no updates, the impact of losing a weekend leaves bidders with less than 3 weeks to revise all volumes of the proposal. For example, we first had to ensure all teammates and internal proposal support staff had all of the revised documents and needed a full day to analyze the tracked changes with the draft proposal that had been written in December 2017. We also had to reach back out to our contingent hires to be sure they are still committed. The changes in the PWS, Sections L, and M have an impact through all Proposal Volumes. In addition, we just received the Historical Stakeholder data which we didn’t have until Friday, that will impact the staffing plan which impacts the BOEs which impacts the Cost Volume – not a small effort! When you consider that the proposal has to be copied, put into binders, packed and shipped, that leaves yet another day less for writing and updating our prior draft proposal, thus bidders have only about two weeks to make these major changes. We respectfully request that the bidders get a full 30 days turnaround so that we have ample opportunity to revise and submit a quality, cost effective proposal. | The Government will extend the proposal delivery date to allow for additional time to submit proposals. | |
| 2 | General | Given the material changes in the amendment on 4 May, these changes would cause significant challenges for most offerors to be able to deliver a compliant proposal in the timeframe given. Would the government kindly consider extending the due date of the proposal by at least 2 weeks so that offerors may deliver a quality product that takes into account the new changes? If a reasonable timeframe cannot be granted, then it may leave many offerors with no choice to “No-Bid” an effort that has been in the works for 2 years | The Government will extend the proposal delivery date to allow for additional time to submit proposals. | |
| 3 | General | Please confirm that there will be overlap with the incumbent contractor during the 14-day transition period. | Yes, there will be an overlap between this contract and the incumbent's contract. The phase-in for this contract will be during the last 14 days of the incumbent's contract. | |
| 4 | General | The previous Q&A stated that "offerors shall use August 22, 2018 as an estimated start date for proposal purposes. However, the actual start date is not known at this time." Has the start date been determined for the period of performance for this contract? | For proposal purposes, the expected date of full performance for this requirement is 7 September 2018. | |
| 5 | Attachment L-02 | The POC listed on page 1 of Attachment L-02 (the Past Performance Questionnaire) is Thomas Keller, who is not one of the points of contact specified in L-1.3. Is this POC correct? | The POC on Attachment L-02 is not correct. The correct POCs are Mr. Kyle Swift and Mr. John Kwiatkowski. | |
| 6 | Attachment L-02 | Our team previously submitted PPQs which were sent to the Government in the late October-November timeframe last year. Does the Government want us to re-submit PPQs? | Due to the time between the original submission and changes in the Points of Contact; offeror's shall resubmit all previously submitted documents. All previously submitted documents shall be resubmitted to the new POCs. | |
| 7 | Attachment L-02 | We submitted our Past Performance Questionnaires prior to the delay. Do we need to resubmit them? | Due to the time between the original submission and changes in the Points of Contact; offeror's shall resubmit all previously submitted documents. All previously submitted documents shall be resubmitted to the new POCs. | |
| 8 | Attachment L-02 | Attachment L-02 released on May 4 requires that the respondents "e-mail the completed questionnaire(s) to: Thomas.Keller@mda.mil." However, Mr. Keller's name and email address in revised Sections L and M are replaced with Mr. Scott Wilson. Should Questionnaires be submitted to Mr. Keller or Mr. Wilson? | The POC on Attachment L-02 is not correct. The correct POCs are Mr. Kyle Swift and Mr. John Kwiatkowski. | |
| 9 | Attachment L-02 | Please clarify if the Questionnaires, already submitted to Mr. Keller, should be resubmitted to Mr. Wilson. As Questionnaires are due to the respondents NLT May 11, 2018 (14 days before the proposal is due) we ask that you respond to this question at your earliest convenience as well as extend the due date for sending Questionnaires to the respondents by at least a week. | Due to the time between the original submission and changes in the Points of Contact; offeror's shall resubmit all previously submitted documents. All previously submitted documents shall be resubmitted to the new POCs in accordance with L-10.4. Reminder, in accordance with Section L, paragraph L-10.4, completed PPQ's are due no later than the proposal due date. Also, the past performance information required in Section L, paragraphs L-10.1 and L-10.3 is due four calendar days before the proposal due date (ref. Section L, paragraph L-3.2). | |
| 10 | Attachment L-02 | We notice the new PPQ (Attachment L-02) in Amendment 08 changes the Contracting Officer POC from Thomas Keller to Kyle Swift. Does this change in POC require offerors to resend the PPQs to respondents? We consider this question time critical, as the suspense for sending the PPQ is Monday, May 21. | Due to the time between the original submission and changes in the Points of Contact; offeror's shall resubmit all previously submitted documents. All previously submitted documents shall be resubmitted to the new POCs in accordance with L-10.4. Reminder, in accordance with Section L, paragraph L-10.4, completed PPQ's are due no later than the proposal due date. Also, the past performance information required in Section L, paragraphs L-10.1 and L-10.3 is due four calendar days before the proposal due date (ref. Section L, paragraph L-3.2). | |
| 11 | Attachment L-05 | We submitted and received approval for our OCI Plan prior to the delay. Do we need to resubmit that plan If we already have the memo from MDA Contracts verifying there are no issues? | Due to the time between the original submission and changes in the Points of Contact; offeror's shall resubmit all previously submitted documents. All previously submitted documents shall be resubmitted to the new POCs to include memos provided by the Government. | |
| 12 | Attachment L-07 | While our fiscal year goes from January to December, we raise rates for each contract based on the CONTRACT’s period of performance (e.g. rate 1 for year 1, rate 2 for year 2). If this is the case, should we state that our contractor fiscal year aligns with the contract period of performance? | Offeror should propose in accordance with their established accounting practices and the terms of the contract. | |
| 13 | Attachment L-07 | EPW contains pull down menus for most fields, however there are several positions that according to the historical data supplied in L-09 support a particular CLIN or Stakeholder that is not available as a pull down. Since vendors are encouraged to use pull downs, can we modify the pulldown in the “data Validation List” tab? | Offerors should only use the positions shown in the Data Validation List tab. The labor categories in L-09 are for historical reference only. | |
| 14 | Attachments L-07 and L-09 | Both of these sections are missing AA (AEGIS Ashore) and ICM (MDA Integration and Operations Center) as Stakeholders/ CLINs. However, these Stakeholders are present in Attachment L-09 (ITMA Historical Information). Can the Government clarify whether these support requirements have gone away, or amend the spreadsheet and Section B to add these Stakeholders in? | For the TEAMS ITMA requirement the AA requirement is included in GD and the ICM requirement is included in ICT. | |
| 15 | Attachment L-09 | Do offerors need to price the 2 potential 2018 “Additional Staff”, listed in the Historical Information document L-09? If so, should we assume those 2 additional staff will be in place at the contract start? | As stated in Attachment L-09, the 2 “additional staff” along with all the information in Attachment L-09 “may be used as an additional data point for industry's insight into the [current] distribution of work among internal MDA stakeholders.” Offerors should price their proposal based on their proposed approach to performing the PWS requirements for this solicitation. Attachment L-14 has been added to section L as the historical Performance Work Statement aligned with the historical data in L-09. The historical PWS and historical information is for references only. | |
| 16 | Attachment L-09 | There are discrepancies between the Staffing by Location table and the Security Classification/ Clearance table on pg 1 and 2 of the Attachment, respectively. For example, while the Staffing by Location table states that there are 16 personnel supporting the ICT at HSV, the Security Classification/ Clearance table yields 13-14 personnel supporting the ICT at HSV. Can the government please clarify which table is correct? | Several of the positions in the Security Classification/Clearance table can be located in HSV or COS. Five personnel could be located in either HSV or COS depending on offeror's unique solution which accounts for the difference in numbers of personnel. | |
| 17 | Attachment L-10 | The attached L-10 Labor Competency Descriptions do not list the required DoD approved Baseline Certifications for each labor category as mentioned in Table 9.1 of the PWS. Will the government consider updating the Labor Competency Descriptions to include the required certifications? | The certifications required for IASAE and IAT certifications are outlined in DoDI 8570.01-m baseline certifications. The labor categories will not be updated to reflect these requirements because they may change over time. | |
| 18 | Section L | Modification/Amendment to the referenced solicitation released on May 4 introduced material changes to Volumes VII (Technical) and Volume VIII (Management). Given the requirement for hard copy delivery, due date of May 25 allows less than three weeks to prepare the response. We kindly ask that the Government consider extending the due date by two weeks to allow bidders sufficient time to prepare and mail their proposal. | The Government will extend the proposal delivery date to allow for additional time to submit proposals. | |
| 19 | Section L | L-1.2 | Section L-1.2 states the "Major Subcontractors" are defined as a subcontractor whose proposed effort provides at least 10% of the proposed total price. However, in Section L-13.1 "Major Subcontractor" is defined as and includes any subcontractor at any tier that contributes more than 10% of the hours. Please clarify which definition should be applied. | The following verbiage has been inserted into paragraph L-1.2: The Cost and Price Volume instructions at L-13.0 utilize the term “Major Subcontractor” to identify the offeror’s team members that comprise 10% or more of the total proposed hours vice 10% of the total cost/price; “Minor Subcontractors” are those team members that comprise less than 10% of the total proposed hours. |
| 20 | Section L | L-3.2 | What are the submission requirements for the Past Performance early deadline associated with L-3.2 – does the government want this information to be sent via email, or adhere to the hard copy/ electronic copy requirements for Volume VI? | In accordance with section L-3.2 offerors shall submit past performance information in L-10.1 and 10.3 four calendar days before the proposal due date. Offeror's shall submit information referenced in sections L-10.1 and 10.3 electronically to the POCs referenced for this solicitation. Additionally, offerors are required to submit a complete Past Performance Volume, Volume VI, to include 10.1 and 10.3 with their proposal submission to the Government |
| 21 | Section L | L-3.2 | L-3.2 states that “past performance information required by L-10.1 and L-10.3 shall be submitted 4 calendar days before the proposal due date.” Does the Government want the Past Performance Volume to be re-submitted with the rest of the proposal, or submitted only once during the early deadline? | In accordance with section L-3.2 offerors shall submit past performance information in L-10.1 and 10.3 four calendar days before the proposal due date. Offeror's shall submit information referenced in sections L-10.1 and 10.3 electronically to the POCs referenced for this solicitation. Additionally, offerors are required to submit a complete Past Performance Volume, Volume VI, to include 10.1 and 10.3 with their proposal submission to the Government |
| 22 | Section L | L-3.2 | Section L-3.2 requirement states that "PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY L-10.1 AND L10.3 SHALL BE SUBMITTED 14 CALENDAR DAYS BEFORE THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE." Please confirm that bidders can submit the entire Volume VI Past Performance vs. only Sections L-10.1 and L-10.3. If only response to Sections L-10.1 and L-10.3 is allowed, should the same sections be submitted as part of Volume VI or omitted from the final submission due May 25? | In accordance with section L-3.2 offerors shall submit past performance information in L-10.1 and 10.3 four calendar days before the proposal due date. Offeror's shall submit information referenced in sections L-10.1 and 10.3 electronically to the POCs referenced for this solicitation. Additionally, offerors are required to submit a complete Past Performance Volume, Volume VI, to include 10.1 and 10.3 with their proposal submission to the Government |
| 23 | Section L | L-4.4 | Volumes 7 and 8 have been broken up into multiple tabs with an overall page limit for the volume, not per tab. Is it acceptable to the Government to have no page breaks between tabs, meaning that a page might contain one tab ending and another starting? We would like to maintain compliance with page limitations while maximizing the use of space. | The Government's intent is for each tab/ divider to be separate from each other. Offer's are to tab/ divide each section individually in the proposal volumes. Tabs/ Dividers do not count towards the page count of the volume in accordance with L-4.10. |
| 24 | Section L | L-4.10 | If no page breaks between tabs are allowed, how should hard copies be formatted, since there is no page break between tabs and therefore tabs cannot be separated by divider tabs as required by L-4.10? | The Government's intent is for each tab/ divider to be separate from each other. Offer's are to tab/ divide each section individually in the proposal volumes. Tabs/ Dividers do not count towards the page count of the volume in accordance with L-4.10. Page breaks between tabs /dividers is not allowed. |
| 25 | Section L | L-4.20 | The POC for submission is Scott Wilson, who is different from the PCO from L-1.3 (Page 1). Can the Government confirm this is the correct POC to whom the volumes should be submitted? | The correct POCs are Mr. Kyle Swift and Mr. John Kwiatkowski. |
| 26 | Section L | L-10.4 | Will offerors be considered compliant if Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) corresponding to submitted Past Performance Information (PPIs) were sent to respondents last fall (in preparation for the previous November proposal due dates)? | Due to the time between the original submission and changes in the Points of Contact; offeror's shall resubmit all previously submitted documents. All previously submitted documents shall be resubmitted to the new POCs in accordance with L-3.2. |
| Section L | Can subcontractors submit documents regarding past performance contracts to the Government in encrypted format as long as the password is provided to the Government. | Yes- offerors and subcontractors can submit encrypted data to the Government as long as it does not conflict with terms in the RFP and the password if provided to the Government. | ||
| 27 | Section L | L-11.0 | The Key Personnel Resume requirement was removed from Section L-11.0.4 Subfactor TS4: Staff Approach. Are key personnel resumes required so the government can evaluate key personnel according to M-7.0.4? If so, where does the government prefer these resumes to be inserted into the proposal? | Offerors are no longer required to provide Key Personnel Resumes. After contract award the government and contractor will identify key staff in accordance with clause H-14. |
| 28 | Section L | L-11.0 | Do resumes count toward the page count? | Key Personnel Resumes are no longer required, and resumes are not required. Offerors shall comply with the page limits of the solicitation. |
| 29 | PWS and Section L | Please confirm which solicitation number should be referenced in the proposal. FBO lists HQ0147-16-R-0015; Attachment J-01 ITMA PWS lists HQ0147-18-R-0004; and Section L lists HQ0147-17-R-0028. | The correct solicitation number is HQ0147-18-R-0004. Due to a limit in FBO, the solicitation in FBO is listed under both solicitation numbers. | |
| 30 | Q&A Response #28 | Will the Government allow CPARS to be page exempt from the Past Performance volume? | The Government is allowing CPARs to be submitted in lieu of PPQs as long as the offeror follows the guidance in Section L-10.4 and M-6.0. Section 10.4 for PPQs does not have a page limit, so CPARS submittals will not be restricted by a page limit either. | |
| 31 | Amendment 7 | According to Amendment 7, the historical Key Product Tables have been removed. Will the government please confirm that the complete list of key products required to deliver is listed with each performance objective of the TEAMS ITMA PWS? | The intent of the work to be performed/delivered is included in the TEAMS ITMA PWS. | |
| 32 | Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract - #20 | Page 3 | Previously, MDA said that offerors would receive 30 days to provide a response once the amendment was released. Will the Government consider extending the submission date from May 25 to June 4, 2018? | The 30 day reference was included with the Pre-Solicitation notice. The pre-solicitation notice said proposals will be due 30 days after the solicitation is issued. The original solicitation was issued on 3 October. |
Information Technology Management and Analysis May 10, 2018
&P
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it.