TABSS Q A Matrix.xls
XLS spreadsheet 425 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Post Award Information for D2T1 Awardees Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HSCG23-10-R-TABS00
About this file
TABSS Q A Matrix
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Post Award Information for D2T1 Awardees 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
Solicitation Q&A's
| TABSS Solicitation Questions & Comments Matrix | |||
| Question Number | Industry Question/Comment | Industry Recommendation and Resulting Benefit to DHS | DHS/USCG Response |
| CATEGORY 1: CORRELATION TO OTHER DEPT.-WIDE VEHICLES | |||
| 1.1 | Please clarify what the difference is between EAGLE II and TABSS with regard to the following support services: |
1. Enterprise Architecture and Program Planning Support
2. Information System (IS) Development, Information Assurance (IA) and Information Technology (IT) Support
3. Software Engineering, Development, Programming and Network EAGLE II is IT. TABSS is non-IT.
To provide further explanation, EAGLE encompasses methodologies and techniques used in information technology and computer-related services designed to support business operations including computers, telecommunications, and office systems or any combination thereof. TABSS addresses the scientific and mathematical aspects of the engineering technology discipline and includes the methodologies and techniques designed to develop, fabricate, and test electronic and mechanical components of systems and software, (i.e., advanced manufacturing, mechatronics, geospatial technology, etc.)
| 1.2 | Does participation Eagle II Small Business track OCI a vendor from Domain 3? | At the IDIQ level if an offeror feels they have an OCI, it should be addressed in the offeror's proposal via a mitigation plan, which the government will take into consideration. At the task order level, OCI concerns will be handled by the task order contracting officer. |
| CATEGORY 2: RESERVED | ||
| CATEGORY 3: PROCUREMENT TIMELINE | ||
| 3.1 | What is the anticipated contract award date, and also the anticipated effective date of the contract (if different from the award date)? | Anticipated award and effective date are both fourth quarter of 2011 (July-Sept). |
| 3.2 | Will the Government please specify a target start date for issuing orders for pricing rate development purposes? | See the answer to question 3.1. |
| 3.3 | What start date should the Offeror assume for the pricing proposal? | See the answer to question 3.1. |
| 3.4 | What is the award date we should assume? | See the answer to question 3.1. |
| 3.5 | What is the planned award date for the TABSS awards for Domains 1, 2, and 3? | See the answer to question 3.1. |
| 3.6 | RFP F-2 Period of Performance (page 11) and RFP Section I 52.216-18 Ordering Reference (page 42): What is the government’s estimated start date? This information will allow all bidders to use the same start date for pricing purposes. | See the answer to question 3.1. |
| 3.7 | What is the expected start and stop dates for each year? If using existing schedule as a basis, should stop and stop dates correspond to schedule dates for rate increases? | Contract Schedule pricing will align with the ordering years of the contract with the first year beginning with the award date. Escalation will be considered for each year following the first year. Offerors should propose their pricing accordingly. |
| 3.8 | Section I 52.216-18 Ordering - This section indicates that the date of award is TBD. Will the Government provide its best estimate of the anticipated date of award? | See the answer to question 3.1. |
| 3.9 | What is the Proposal Acceptance Period? Page 65 of the RFP, 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (c), states 30 calendar days; page 74, L-9 Proposal Acceptance Period, states 180 days. Can the Government please clarify? | This is the length of time for which offers are to remain valid. |
FAR clause 52.212-1 allows the Government to set an alternate proposal acceptance period, which was set at 180 days in Section L-9. However, the Government has amended 52.212-1(c) to reflect 180 days vice 30 days in order to improve clarity.
| 3.10 | Can the Government clarify the Period of acceptance of Offers of 30 days indicated in item (c) with Section L-9 (Proposal Acceptance Period) of 180 days. | See the answer to question 3.9. |
| 3.11 | pg. 65 states "The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers…" while pg. 74 states "… the proposal acceptance period is 180 days after the date set for receipt of proposals." |
| Which is the correct offer acceptance period? | See the answer to question 3.9. | |||
| 3.12 | Can the Government clarify the Period of acceptance of Offers of 30 days indicated in item (c) with Section L and (Proposal Acceptance Period) of 180 days on page 74? | See the answer to question 3.9. | ||
| 3.13 | 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors ( c): Instructions in this paragraph indicate offeror agrees to hold prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date of the proposal submission due date, however section L-9 Proposal Acceptance Period indicates that the proposal acceptance period is 180 days after the date set for receipt of proposals and that offerors must state that the proposal is valid until the 180 days has ended. Does this mean that the price schedule can be revised if award occurs after 30 days and before the 180 days period is over? | See the answer to question 3.9. | ||
| 3.14 | There are two references to the acceptance period in the RFP, Sections L-1 and L-9. Please confirm that the acceptance period is 180-days. | See the answer to question 3.9. | ||
| 3.15 | Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation. There does not appear to be an alternative length in the solicitation. Please confirm the offer is valid for 30 days from submission. | See the answer to question 3.9. | ||
| 3.16 | On page 64, Period for acceptance of offerors, it is stated that prices should be valid for 30 days from receipt of offer, however, on page 74, paragraph L-9 Proposal Acceptance Period, it states that the proposal acceptance period is 180 days after recipt of the offer. Given the likely high volume of proposals likely for any of the 3 Domains, is 30 days a sufficient period for acceptance of offerors? Please clarify. | See the answer to question 3.9. | ||
| 3.17 | As with other firms, we will be submitting as Prime on both TABSS and EAGLE. Due to the limited resources of small businesses in this size standard, and the 13 day proximity between the EAGLE and TABSS deadline, we ask the governement to consider extending the TABSS deadline to correspond with 53 day duration of EAGLE. | Please see Amendment 3 for more information. | ||
| 3.18 | Would the government consider extending the proposal due date for small businesses until February 14th? | See the answer to question 3.17. | ||
| 3.19 | Section F-2 - Period of Performance - Given that this clause prohibits 5-year task orders after the first year of this contract’s inception, would the Government please consider modifying this clause to allow task orders to extend five years past the base ordering period? | Recommendation noted. | ||
| CATEGORY 4: SCOPE | ||||
| 4.1 | Who are the incumbents who currently perform Business Management, Financial Management, and Audit Support Services? | TABSS is a new initiative and therefore there is no incumbent. | ||
| 4.2 | Who is the incumbent? | See the answer to question 4.1. | ||
| 4.3 | In lieu of the RFP’s FAR Clause Of the Open Records Act, please provide a copy of the incumbents’ proposals and pricing. | See the answer to question 4.1. | ||
| 4.4 | Who does the government consider to be incumbents contractors for this particular initiative? Are any of these contractors OCI’d from this initiative? | See the answer to question 4.1. | ||
| 4.5 | Can the Government provide an estimate of the percentage of work/task orders/FTEs it expects to be performed using the incumbent workforce? Has the Government established its intentions concerning the retention of incumbent workforce? | See the answer to question 4.1. | ||
| 4.6 | What portion of the work is likely to be continuation of similar existing task orders and what portion will likely be new work? | As all work will be performed via individual task orders, that information cannot be determined at this time. | ||
| 4.7 | What are the ‘DHS Components’, programs and their requirements? (i.e., as specified within the second paragraph in Section B-1 on page 2) | TABSS will service an assortment of DHS components. More information can be found here: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/#1. |
Each component contains a variety of programs and their requirements will be determined at the individual TO level.
| 4.8 | Please furnish subject matter expertise examples for your RFP’s acquisitions. | Specific requirements will be defined at the task order level. |
| 4.9 | Please furnish acquisition worksites. | Place of performance will be determined at the individual TO level. |
However, we expect most task orders to be performed in the National Capital Region (NCR).
| 4.10 | Should we assume the National Capitol Region as a basis for the rates? | While offerors must take into consideration the NCR-based wage determination rates as noted in Attachment 2, the government does not restrict the geographical basis for setting labor rates. Also see amended section B-5. | |
| 4.11 | Will the contractor be required to have an office at the specified location or can the work be completed in their own offices? Where will the work be performed? (Section E-4) | See the answer to question 4.9. | |
| 4.12 | Section notes that services shall take place at a location established in the task order. Are these locations throughout the country, a specific region or city? (Section E-4) | See the answer to question 4.9. | |
| 4.13 | What are the locations of the sites at which the work will be performed under this contract? If the site locations will be identified at the Task Order level, what type of locations should be used for preparing travel cost estimates in the price proposal? | See the answer to question 4.9. | |
| 4.14 | Does the Government have historical metrics on the number of personnel, type, and regional locations for the predecessor contracts (BPAs, etc.)? If so, can the Government provide those metrics? | See the answer to question 4.1. The government does not have such metrics. | |
| 4.15 | Can the Government provide notional information on the primary locations for the work to be performed under TABSS? Perhaps the top four or five anticipated primary performance sites for larger task orders? This is important to target recruiting actions geographically. | See the answer to question 4.9. | |
| 4.16 | Does an offeror have to fulfill all support services listed under each of the domains for which it will be submitting a proposal? In other words, does an offeror for domain 1 have to be able to be able to perform all services listed in Section C-2.1 or are these services just an example? | Per Section L-8 of the amended RFP, "The Offeror must clearly demonstrate its knowledge of DHS, DHS components, and the scope of requirements involved in the offeror’s proposed Domain." Offerors should be able to fulfill all requirements of their proposed Domain. | |
| 4.17 | Attachment 3A, 3B, and 3C contain a long list of potential required labor categories. Will respondents be considered non-responsive if they do not provide a price for every labor category – even if they have no expectation of being able to fill that category? | See the answer to question 4.16 and amended Section L-8 (Section D) in the RFP. | |
| 4.18 | Do offerors need to describe experience in every support area listed under a domain, a certain percentage of support areas, etc.? | See the answer to question 4.16. | |
| 4.19 | We noticed that there is no 8(a) track for Domain 2 and only an SDVOSB track. Is there a reason for not having an 8(a) track? If so, what is the reason for that decision? | DHS considered past contractal experience and current market research in forming the respective domains. As a result, we feel the domain structure contained in the amended RFP both maximizes competition and brings the maximum benefit to our customers while still meeting DHS's small business goals. | |
| 4.20 | C-2 Domains, Domain 2: Capital Planning, currently a requirement for Domain 1, is closely aligned to Budgeting Programming support and Business Case Development Support in Domain 2. We request the Government consider adding the Capital Planning requirement to Domain 2. | See the answer to question 4.22. | |
| 4.21 | C-2 Domains, Domain 3: We request that the requirement for Record Management Support be reworded to clarify and align the requirement with the others in this Domain. The revised wording would read: Contract Record & File Management Support (or something similar). | Recommendation noted. Also, see the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.22 | Domain 1 seems to include business support services that fit into Domain 2 such as Lifecycle Cost Estimating and Capital Planning. Since Lifecycle Cost Estimating and Capital Planning are usually resource areas of support (Business and Financial), is there some subtle restriction in the scope for Domain 2 that DHS is applying that explains why these support areas were only included in Domain 1? | This has been addressed in the amended Section C-2.2. | |
| 4.23 | Strategic and Tactical Planning, Alignment, and Integration Support vs. Strategic Planning and Analysis Support |
| Please differentiate between DHS's definition of these two SOW support services, or provide examples of tasks that would fall under each of these categories. | This has been addressed in amended Section C-2.1. | ||
| 4.24 | In Domain 1 Support Services listed (p.5 of RFP), could the following be defined: |
a. Engineering Support Services
b. International Programs Support
| c. Logistics Support, Including Training - Please specify which kind of training is needed | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.25 | The RFP lists a number of labor categories for TABSS to include a "Senior Engineer." |
| Please clarify the type(s) of engineer that DHS is looking for under the Engineer categories. Are you looking for civil, mechanical, geotechnical, environmental, and structural engineers, or do you only need Systems Engineers? | Labor category descriptions will be augmented in a future amendment. | ||
| 4.26 | In reference to concerns and questions about the difference or overlap of the Domain 2 services and the FM BPA, past responses (1.3) stated that Domain 2 services are those accounting services incidental to the acquisition process. Was this response only in reference to the Audit services of Domain 2 or are the Business management and Financial Management services also limited by “accounting services” incidental to the acquisition process? | All Domain 2 requirements are related to or incidental to the acquisition process. | |
| 4.27 | Both Domains 1 and 2 included Earned Value Management (EVM) Support. Are there any different technical expectations for the EVM services performed under Domain 1 verses providing the same services under Domain 2? | See the answer to question 4.28. Domains 1 and 2 were written broadly enough to encompass EVM support in both. | |
| 4.28 | Further definition is requested of the following Support Services listed in Domain 1. |
1. Certification and Accreditation Support
2. Enterprise Resource Management Support
3. Interoperability Support
4. Logistics Support, including training
5. Market Assessments Support The Statement of Work (Section C) was intentionally written broadly so that TABSS is able to accomodate the varied acquisition support required across DHS at the task order level.
Specific requirements will be defined at the task order level.
| 4.29 | Reference RFP Attachment 10: Will the Government provide descriptions for the labor categories listed in Attachment 10 - Education and Experience Requirements Matrix? | See the answer to question 4.25. |
| 4.30 | The SOW for Domain 2 lists fourteen (14) Service Support areas. Please provide an expanded explanation of each support area to further demonstrate what activity is expected for each area. Is there an alternate reference guide that would provide these expanded definitions of each area? | See the answer to question 4.28. |
| 4.31 | Security, Contingency, and Safety Planning Support |
| Please provide DHS's definition of this SOW support service, or examples of tasks that would fall under this category. | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.32 | Systems Engineering Support, e.g., C4ISR |
| Please provide DHS's definition of this SOW support service, or examples of tasks that would fall under this category. | See the answer to question 4.28. | ||
| 4.33 | Please provide DHS's definition of this SOW support service, or examples of tasks that would fall under this category. | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.34 | What are the Task Leader's responsibilities? | See the answer to question 4.25. | |
| 4.35 | Can the government provide an attachment with brief descriptions of the support services in each domain so that there is clarity and a common understanding for all bidders. | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.36 | Will DHS provide labor category descriptions? For instance, what functions will the Computer Systems Specialists’ positions perform in the contract management arena and what are the different responsibilities of the Program Manager and Project Manager? | See the answer to question 4.25. | |
| 4.37 | Please provide a short description of the various support services listed in the bullets listed in section C-2.1 (pages 5 and 6 of the RFP). | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.38 | Further definition is requested of the following position in Domain 1. |
| Senior Logistician | See the answer to question 4.25. | ||
| 4.39 | Since past performance will be evaluated to determine the extent of similarity to the scope and complexity of the TABSS statement of work, please provide information more information concerning the scope and complexity of the support services listed in bullet form for each Domain in Section C.2 of the RFP. | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.40 | Further definition is requested of the following Support Services listed in Domain 2. |
1. Business Intelligence Support
2. Strategic, Operational, and Transactional Metric Development Support
| 3. DHS Project Reporting Support (DHS support only) | See the answer to question 4.28. | ||
| 4.41 | Please define each of the terms used in the Domain 2 intro paragraph as it relates to Acquisition of program-wide and project specific activities: expenditure planning, programming, execution, and reporting. | See the answer to question 4.28. | |
| 4.42 | RFP, Page 71: Would DHS please define what they see the roles and/or job requirements of the six positions listed under Domain 1 labor categories. In particular, will there be a single Task Leader for the entire contract, or would there be multiple Task Leaders; one for each task order awarded? | See the answer to question 4.25. |
There is one IDIQ-level position and that is the Senior Program Manager. Other labor category utilization (such as the usage of Task Leaders) will be based upon each TO issued by individual TO COs.
| 4.43 | The scope identifies that the TABSS contract will support DHS requirements on a world wide basis. Is this to be understood that Task Orders could be issued for OCONUS work under this contract? If so is there a separate pricing sheet for OCONUS positions? | See the answer to 4.9 and see amended Section B-5. |
| 4.44 | Page 5, Section C-1.2 references provision of services under this contract on a worldwide basis. Will the Government allow rate premiums for individuals working OCONUS? | See the answer to question 4.43. |
| 4.45 | Given the possibility of OCONUS work, how should we accommodate this into the pricing? | See the answer to question 4.43. |
| 4.46 | Page 5, Section C-1.2 (“Scope”) states “As identified in individual task orders, the services provided under TABSS will support DHS on a worldwide basis.” |
Is DHS requiring OCONUS pricing for the global locations? And if so;
| What are the expected OCONUS locations? And how do we provide the OCONUS pricing? | See the answer to question 4.43. | |||
| 4.47 | Will DBA insurance be billable to the individual Task Orders for overseas work? | See the answer to question 4.43. | ||
| 4.48 | Increasingly, IT related services in the commercial sector as well as other large Government agencies, permits a portion of IT related services to be performed off site, through telecommuting or in non-co-located IT service centers. If appropriate for this contract, it can be a significant cost savings measure. Does the government anticipate permitting telecommuting, or other off-site IT services related activities? If so, what percentage? Has the Government defined specific types of work performance or task orders that would be more appropriate for telecommuting or other off-site IT locations? If so, please specify. | Place of performance will be addressed at the individual task order level. | ||
| 4.49 | What is the revenue TABSS is looking for in a company looking to be prime contractor for Domain 2? | There is no specific revenue requirement for TABSS. | ||
| 4.50 | Both Domains 1 and 2 included Earned Value Management (EVM) Support. Are there any different technical expectations for the EVM services performed under Domain 1 verses providing the same services under Domain 2? | See the answer to question 4.27. | ||
| 4.51 | Will ordering organizations outside of CG9 be participating in the source selection process? | Yes. | ||
| 4.52 | How many awards does DHS anticipate making in response to this solicitation? | See Section L-11 of the amended RFP. | ||
| 4.53 | We understand in Domain 2 the Government is expecting the set aside primes to include one of the large accounting firms on their team. Could the government identify what large accounting firms they consider acceptable? If one of the set asides includes an accounting firm with DHS experience that is not one of these firms is that considered acceptable? | This is not an expectation nor a requirement for award under TABSS. | ||
| 4.54 | It is our understanding this contract is suppose to support all DHS. Our understanding, however, is that the team must have specific Coast Guard experience in order to be considered viable. It is this correct? If this is correct what specific coast guard experience is considered important? Does the prime need to have this experience or does the composite team need to have this experience? | Specific Coast Guard experience is not a requirement for award under TABSS. | ||
| 4.55 | Given the breadth of work included under Domain 2, would US Coast Guard / DHS consider raising the Small Business size standard from $7 million to $25 million to allow for participation from organizations that can truly meet all requirements noted in the RFP? | Recommendation noted. Please note that the NAICS code applicable to a given procurement is determined by the nature of the services to be provided, not the dollar value of the contract vehicle. The size standard for a given NAICS code is determined by the Small Business Administration. | ||
| 4.56 | In Section L-11 Anticipated Number of Awards, the government states that it may, based on the offers received and its best interests, make either fewer or more awards than its stated estimates. Once awarded, TABSS will become the Department’s only multiple award IDIQ vehicle for non-IT services. Given that TABSS will replace other DHS-wide, expiring BPAs with as many as 11 prime service providers and will become the only non-IT vehicle, it may be in the best interests of the government to increase the initial number of awards in order to obtain more service providers and achieve more competition. Awarding fewer prime contracts is also likely to have a limiting effect on adequate competition at the task order level and a negative effect on price realism in vendor proposals. | Recommendation noted. Please note that the scope of TABSS does not include all non-IT services but rather is limited to Acquisition Support Servicies. | ||
| 4.57 | As an interested party, I would like to know if I have to bid on 1 or 2 Domains or all 3? In other words, do I have to provide a bid for all 3 Domains? | No. Please see Section L-3 of the amended RFP for more information. | ||
| CATEGORY 5: SMALL BUSINESS | ||||
| 5.1 | Section J, Attachment 6 - Section II E - Section indicates for each contract, bidder's list on subcontract solicitations over $100,000 (explain absence of SB, SDB, WOB, HUBZone, VOSB, or SDVOSB concerns) and reasons if responding SB concerns failed to receive award. |
| FAR 52.219-9d(11)(iii) indicates this amount to be $150,000. Please confirm which number we should use in our subcontracting plan. | At the time of RFP release, Attachment 6 reflected the FAR thresholds then in use. As the FAR has since been modified, see the amended Attachment 6. | |||
| 5.2 | Section C - Recommend that the Government confirm the dollar threshold in Section C.2 of the DHS Checklist. | See the answer to question 5.1. | ||
| 5.3 | Section J, Attachment 6 - Section II C - Section indicates that the subcontractors, except small businesses, who receive subcontracts over the applicable threshold ($550,000 or $1,000,000) will adopt a similar subcontracting plan. |
| FAR 52.219-9(d)(9) indicates these numbers to be $650,000 or ($1,500,000 for construction). Please confirm which numbers we should utilize in our subcontracts. | See the answer to question 5.1. | ||
| 5.4 | Are there set aside (HUBZone/8(a)/Veteran Owned) contracts for these tracts as well? If so, are they under a different solicitation number? | See Section B-4 of the amended RFP for the set-aside tracks within each domain. | |
| 5.5 | Please advise on the rational concerning the use of a $7.0 Million NAICS Code on an $11.0 Billion IDIQ, which in essence removes most small businesses under $25.0 Million from priming this effort. | See the answer to question 4.55. | |
| 5.6 | We are a Small Business that exceeds the small business size revenue of $7M under NAICS 541611 which has been established for the Small Business Set-Aside Track. |
Based on the RFP statement responses to Industry Questions, I interpret that to indicate that we cannot participate as a Core Team Member of an eligible Small Business Prime. Is this correct?
| Secondly, if my interpretation is correct and we are not eligible to participate as a Core Team Member due to our small business size revenue exceeding the $7M ceiling; are we eligible to participate as a team member on the Small Business Set-Aside Track under the eligible Small Business Prime as a Non-Core teammate? If so, how would this need to be addressed in the proposal? | There is no reference to a core team member in the RFP. See answer to question 5.7. | |||
| 5.7 | I just wanted to confirm that large-business is still able to team as a sub-contractor under a small-business prime for the small-business tracks of Domain 1 & 2. This was allowed according to the Draft RFP, has this been changed with the release of the final RFP? | Per FAR 52.219-9 in the TABSS solicitation, this is still allowed for all three domains. | ||
| 5.8 | Section L-8 - Small businesses do "not" have the 40 labor categories defined in Attachment 10 let alone be able to define "standard position nomenclature for each labor category" and then provide "position descriptions for each labor category." Recommend that the requirement to provide "position descriptions for each labor category" be removed as a requirement from the small business proposal responses. | Recommendation noted. | ||
| 5.9 | How does DHS perceive the risk of a populated joint venture vs. a unpopulated joint venture? | There is no requirement for a specific type of joint venture. | ||
| 5.10 | Are the Government’s SB goal percentages based on subcontracted dollars or total contract value? | Per FAR 52.219-9 in the TABSS solicitation, "Goals, expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars…" | ||
| 5.11 | Regarding Page 16, G – 4.1.2 Socio Economic Subcontracting Goals for Large Businesses, what is the total percentage to be assigned to small businesses? Is it 40%, with 3% going to SDB, 3% to WOSB, 5% to SDVOSB, and 5% to HUBZone, or is it 56% (40% + 3% + 3% + 5% + 5%)? | The total small business percentage goal is 40%, which includes all small businesses. The exact percentages are stated in the amended Section G-4.1.2. | ||
| 5.12 | Must any Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business bidding as a Prime or team member be verified by the Veteran’s Administration under this contract? | No. Per Section B-4 of the amended RFP, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) must be certified as such "by the Small Business Administration." | ||
| 5.13 | For Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Prime or team members, if the SDVOSB owner retires (or there is unexpected death) or is unable to continue to manage day-to-day matters of the business, how long will the SDVOSB have under the contract to execute succession if something happens to the SDVOSB owner? | DHS would refer the matter to SBA in the event of such an occurrence for the final determination. | ||
| 5.14 | If more than one Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business is on the SDVOSB team, can the other companies also comprise the 51% of work share that must be performed by the SDVOSB under this contract? | Per FAR 52.219-27 in the amended RFP, other SDVOSB team mates can comprise the 50% work share. | ||
| 5.15 | Can you clarify if the 51% staff of the Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business concern required to perform the work under CR Title 13, 125.15 can comprise of contingent hires, Independent Consultants, and Subcontractors, or must the 51% of staff comprise of SDVOSB employees only? | The reference to 51% has to do with ownership. CFR 13, 125.8(g) explains that a SDVOSB is a small business concern (SBC) owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (also known as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SBC); ownership is not less than 51% owned by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than 51% of the stock of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans. | ||
| 5.16 | Section L-8 of the solicitation instructs offerors to complete Volume II, Section C based on certain criteria. We are an 8(a) firm submitting a proposal on an Unrestricted Track because we do not qualify as small under the NAICS code for this procurement. Should we follow the instructions for Large Business Offerors or the instructions for Small Business, 8(a), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Offerors? | Since your firm would be considered as a Large Business under the applicable NAICS size standard, please follow the Large Business / Unrestricted offeror instructions. | ||
| 5.17 | We are planning to submit a proposal in Domains 3 as an 8(a) firm. We understand that a small business/socio-economic subcontracting plan is not required however the final RFP Section C: Socio-Economic Considerations Factor 3 requires the SB to indicate in their proposal what percentage and dollar amounts it plans to subcontract to each socio-economic type of “firm”. Is the SB to utilize the DHS Subcontracting Plan Attachment 6 for this response or a general statement about how the contract will be administered? | Attachment 6 is not applicable to small businesses under the TABSS NAICS code. |
Also, Attachment 6 is a DHS evaluation form, so offerors need not complete it.
| 5.18 | Section M 3.1.3 Factor 3 Socio-Economic Considerations indicates that the plan is required to evaluate “large business” subcontracting plans based on FAR 19.704. Are small business offerors required to submit a subcontracting plan? If yes, will it be evaluated and if so, please clarify what is required? | No, small businesses under the applicable NAICS code do not need to submit a formal subcontracting plan. However, small businesses must submit certain subcontracting information per Section L-8 of the amended RFP. |
| 5.19 | Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 124.507(d)(1) and (2), an 8(a) firm may be awarded a competitive 8(a) contract if it was an eligible 8(a) participant on the initial date specified for receipt of offers in the solicitation, even though its 8(a) program may expire after that date. Will the Government comply with the CFR in determining the eligibility of 8(a) firms who respond to the TABSS solicitation? | The government will follow all applicable laws and regulations during source selection. |
| 5.20 | RFP, Page 74, Section C: Socio-Economic Considerations: For small business, the RFP requires a statement on the types and percentages of work to be subcontracted to the different business types (small business, large business, 8a, etc.). Since details of the specific work will not be known until release of task orders, are these expected figures or will this be taken as a contractual commitment? | The government considers the offeror's submission under the Socio-Economic Factor as a good faith representation of its intended performance under the contract. Further, see 52.219-14 for additional information. |
| 5.21 | Does the 5 year contract base period mean that subcontractors will not have to recertify their status against the size standard? | If a small business meets the appropriate small business size standards at the time that the final proposal is submitted, it is considered small for five (5) years, unless its size status changes due to an acquisition or merger. |
If the size status of a small business prime changes due to acquisition or merger at any point during the life of the contract, it must re-represent within 30 days. If this occurs and the business is no longer small, it can no longer participate in any future task order competitions under the TABSS program and will be removed from the contract. The business, however, will be able to complete its work on the current task order(s).
| 5.22 | On page 73, Section C, the RFP instructs Offers to submit a signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement approval from DHS OSDBU, if applicable. Will participation in this program be an evaluation factor for small businesses? | No, see amended Section M-3.1.3. |
| 5.23 | Although the proposal instructions provided in Section L-8 for Volume II, Section C for Large Business Offerors and Small Business, 8(a), and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Offerors are different, the evaluation factors do not distinguish between large and small business offerors. In fact, it appears that only the first sentence of Section M-3.1.3 is applicable to small business offerors based on the instructions provided in Section L-8. Is this true? | See answer to question 5.22. |
| 5.24 | In calculating the 3 year average revenue that determines an organization’s “size”, should revenue figures from 2008, 2009, & 2010 or 2007, 2008, & 2009 be applied? | See 13 CFR 121.104 for more information. |
| 5.25 | Are the Government's small business goals applied at the contract level or at the task order level? | The goals are applied at the contract level. |
| 5.26 | Will the Government confirm that the overal SB goal of 40% is calculated against the total dollars the prime utilizes subcontractors for, and that the 40% includes small businesses of all types? | See answers to question 5.10 and 5.11. |
| 5.27 | Will the Government confirm that of the TOTAL dollars subcontracted to small business concerns, that 16% of these dollars be awarded across Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business and HUBZone socio-economic as indicated in Section G-4.1.2? | See the answer to question 5.11. |
| 5.28 | (Section M-3.1.3) Will socio-economic considerations (factor 3) be evaluated differently for small business, 8a and SDVOB teams than for teams in the unrestricted tracks? | This has been clarified - see amended Section M-3.1.3. The first paragraph of this section applies to all offerors, subsequent paragraphs of this section apply to large businesses only. |
| 5.29 | Please confirm our understanding of Item #2 of Section L-3, “Domain and Track Conditions” on page 68 of the solicitation. If we propose as a prime contractor for the Small Business Set Aside Track of Domain 2, we may also be included as a subcontractor for Domain 2 by other prime contractors proposing for the Unrestricted Track and the SDVOSB Track. Is this understanding correct? | Yes. |
| 5.30 | Section B-4, Competition - “SDVOSB Set-Aside Track – competition restricted to firms certified as Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) by the Small Business Administration.” |
| Since the SBA does not certify SDVOSB as it is a self certification; please clarify what, if any, certification, other than the Representation or Certification declaration, is required. | Offerors must certify their SDVOSB status per the FAR Part 52.212-3 clause in the amended RFP. If questions arise about an offeror's self-certification, the Small Business Administration (SBA) will decide the final size status. | ||
| 5.31 | Can offeror prime on one track and sub on another? For instance, if offeror primes within the 8(a) Set-Aside Track can offerror also sub under the Unrestricted Track? | For Domains 1 and 2, yes. Please see Section L-3 of the amended RFP for more information. | |
| 5.32 | We are a small business that is currently considered "small" under the TABSS size standard but will be considered "large" at the start of the next fiscal year. |
| Can we submit our proposal early to be certified as "small," regardless of amendments? Overall, when must we certify ourselves as small? | Offerors must certify themselves as "small" at the time they turn in their final proposal. If an amended proposal is required due to any RFP amendments, offerors must recertify themselves at that time. | |||
| 5.33 | In Domain 3, are you asking for the contractor to supply personnel to do the work required or for the contractor to actually perform the work required in-house? | The contractor must perform the requirements described in individual task orders. | ||
| CATEGORY 6: TEAMING, SUB-CONTRACTING & OCI | ||||
| 6.1 | Section L, page 72 - "Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offerors' teaming arrangements." |
| This instruction applies to the Management Approach section which has a limit of 10 pages. Recommend teaming arrangement documents, if required, be submitted as an appendix to the management plan without page count restrictions. | "Documentation" does not necessarily mean the entire legal agreement between offerors. Offerors may summarize or describe their teaming arrangements but must provide enough information to meet the Section L-8 of the amended RFP requirements, keeping in mind the page limitations specified in Section L-6. | |||
| 6.2 | Section L-8 - If the phrase "submit documentation demonstrating offeror's teaming arrangements" means "teaming agreements," we request that the "teaming agreements" be excluded from the page count. | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.3 | Section B - Item h requires documentation of teaming agreements. Could the Government indicate what is acceptable documentation for the proposal submission? We assume this documentation is not included in the 10 page limit for Section B – please confirm. | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.4 | Section L-8, Section B: Management Approach part h (page 72) requests documentation demonstrating the offerors’ teaming arrangements. As a single Teaming Agreement is often in excess of 10 pages would the Government consider moving this section outside of the page count? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.5 | Para L-8 Section B Management Approach (p.72) requires “Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offeror’s teaming arrangements.” The number and length of our teaming agreements precludes us from fitting them within the 10 page limit for the Management Approach. Would the Government consider excluding these from the page count, or requesting more specific information that can be briefly summarized? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.6 | Is it the Government’s intent to receive copies of Teaming Agreements (TAs) from all Prime team members as part of the Section B response? |
If so, is it the Government’s intent not to count these TAs towards the 10 electronic pages allocated to this section?
| If not, can the Government specify what documentation is considered acceptable and whether such documentation will be included in the 10 electronic page limit? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |||
| 6.7 | Given that Section B: Management Approach is limited to 10 electronic pages, we request that documentation demonstrating an offeor’s teaming arrangement be allowed to be placed in an appendix and not count towards the mandated page limit of 10 pages. | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.8 | Section L-8 of the solicitation states that Volume I, Section B should include documentation demonstrating offerors teaming arrangements. Will this documentation count against the 10 page limit for that section? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.9 | Under this contract, does the Government require that all Contractor Team Arrangements between the Prime Offeror and its Subcontractor team members reference the provisions of FAR Subpart 9.6? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.10 | Documentation demonstrating offerors’ teaming arrangements: Will letters of commitment be sufficient documentation? Will these be counted toward page count? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.11 | Please confirm that teaming arrangement documentation is outside the 10-page limit for Section B. | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.12 | Section L-8 (p.72) Section B, paragraph H. With a 10 page limit on Section B, what specific documentation does the government require relative to teaming arrangements? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.13 | Page 72, Section L-8, Volume I, Section B, item h) states, “Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offerors’ teaming arrangements.” We assume that teaming arrangements refers to joint ventures and similar teaming constructs rather than the use of subcontractors. Please confirm. | Teaming arrangements refer to joint ventures, prime-subcontractor relationships, and the like. | ||
| 6.14 | What constitutes acceptable documentation of teaming arrangements [L-8, Section B(h), pg 72]? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.15 | We conclude that the documentation associated with requirement “h” is included in the page limitation. Under what circumstances is submission of teaming arrangements applicable? If primes must submit teaming arrangements, are they required to provide the Government with all documentation governing the teaming arrangements between the prime and all individual team members or is a sample document that applies in general to all team members acceptable? If teaming arrangement documentation must be submitted as part of the Management Approach, is it advisable for the documentation to be subject to a page limitation? | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.16 | If teaming agreement documentation must be provided with the offer, the Government would be best served by giving greater guidance as to specifically what type of documentation is required and by permitting that documentation to be provided without page limitation and excluded from the page count of the Management Approach. Another alternative is to provide a summary of companies that have fully executed teaming agreements with the Prime. If further proof that agreements are fully executed is desired, then perhaps the signature pages be required to be provided, but again excluded from the maximum page count. | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.17 | The RFP requires that "The Management Approach shall address at a minimum: h) Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offerors' teaming arrangements." Can the Government provide more direction about this requirement, including: |
1. What documentation should offerors present in their proposals about their teaming arrangements?
2. Where should this information be presented (e.g., as Appendix to Management Section in Volume 1)?
| 3. Please confirm that any teaming agreement documentation is outside the required page limitations for the Management Approach section. | See the answer to question 6.1. | ||
| 6.18 | Section L-8 (p.72) Section B, paragraph H. With a 10 page limit on Section B, what specific documentation does the government require relative to teaming arrangements? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.19 | Please specify what is meant by “documentation demonstrating offerors teaming arrangements” and to what extent should these arrangements be discussed? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.20 | RFP L-8, Volume II, Section C Socio-Economic Considerations (page 73): The government has requested that Large Business Offerors submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, as well as copies of signed letters from the DHS Office of Small Business and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) indicating participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program. Can we assume that this documentation is excluded from the page limitations identified in Section L-6, p. 70? | For teaming arrangements, see the answer to question 6.1. |
For the DHS Mentor-Protégé program, see the amended Section L-6.
| 6.21 | Are copies of our executed Teaming Agreements sufficient to fulfill the requirement of "Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offeror's teaming arrangements"? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.22 | Is it the intent of the Government for the prime to submit executed teaming agreements or sufficient portions thereof? If so, is this excluded from the page count? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.23 | Section L, page 72, Management Approach, requires that the offeror provide documentation demonstrating teaming arrangements. Will the Government confirm that this documentation is excluded from Volume 1 page count limitations? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.24 | Section L-8. Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offerors’ teaming arrangements. What type of document is the government looking for to demonstrate teaming arrangements? Does this count in the page limit? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.25 | Recommend that the Government allow a summary of the Offerors' teaming structure within the current section page limits. If documentation from a subcontractor is required it be submitted as an exception to the Section page limits. | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.26 | L-8 Contents of Proposal, Section B Management Approach (h): The instructions indicate that the offerors must submit documentation demonstrating any teaming arrangements, where applicable. What type of documentation is the Government expecting to see (e.g, signed Teaming Agreements)? And does this documentation count toward the page limit? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.27 | On page 72, Section B (h), the RFP requires Offerors to submit documentation demonstrating teaming arrangements. Will such documentation count against the 10 page limit in Section B? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.28 | What would DHS accept as evidence of teaming arrangements? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.29 | Section L-8, VOLUME II Section C: Socio-Economic Considerations: will the government consider excluding from the page count the copy of the “signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement approval from the DHS Office of Small Business and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).” | See the answer to question 6.20. | |
| 6.30 | Will letters of commitment signed by teaming partners satisfy the requirement to submit documentation demonstrating offerors' teaming arrangements? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.31 | Is it correct to assume that documentation demonstrating the offeror’s teaming arrangements is excluded from the page count? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.32 | Pg 72: L-8, Vol1, Section B, subpar h: “Where applicable, the Offer shall submit documentation demonstrating Offerors’ teaming arrangements” Question: Is it the Government’s intent that Offerors provide executed copies of Teaming Agreements for each of the Offerors proposed team members? If so, it is Industry Standard for Teaming Agreements to be 10 or more pages in length for each proposed Team Member. Question: Will the Government please advise if copies of Teaming Agreements are to be provided as an Attachment to Volume I and advise if such documentation is counted against page count? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.33 | The government requests copies of offeror's teaming agreements. Please confirm that these are outside of the page count allotted for the Management Approach. | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.34 | What type of documentation would the Government like to receive regarding teaming arrangements and will this count against the page count in the Management Approach or should it be provided in another section of the response? | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.35 | Please define what the Government wishes to see to satisfy the requirement to “submit documentation demonstrating offerors’ teaming arrangements.” For larger teams, this requirement will severely impact the 10 page limit for the section. Therefore, we request this documentation be excluded from the page count. | See the answer to question 6.1. | |
| 6.36 | Where should the teaming documentation be inserted in the proposal and is this documentation exempt from page counts? | Per Sections L-6 and L-8 of the amended RFP, please submit the teaming arrangements with Volume I, Section B. |
For more information, see the answer to question 6.1.
| 6.37 | RFP page 72, Section B, paragraph H states, “Where applicable, the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating Offerors’ teaming arrangements.” Please clarify if this is a requirement to submit teaming agreements? If so, will they be counted towards page limits? | See the answer to question 6.1. |
| 6.38 | In the instructions for Volume I, Section B: Management Approach, paragraph h) requires that “the Offeror shall submit documentation demonstrating offerors’ teaming arrangements.” Will a list of companies participating on the team be sufficient documentation? If a teaming agreement is required, will the agreement be exempt from the page limitation of Section B? | See the answer to question 6.1. |
| 6.39 | Please confirm that the "documentation demonstrating offerors' teaming arrangements" referred to in Section B, paragraph h) is not included in the page count limitations for this section. | See the answer to question 6.1. |
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 .