Questions and Answers - 8 SEP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 77 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DHS Tactical Communications
- Solicitation number
- HSSS01-11-R-1001
About this file
Questions and Answers - September 8 2011
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| TacCom RFP 3 OCT.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_HSSS01-11-R-1001 - Vendor Questions and Answers Sep 30.docx | DOCX document | |
| TacCom RFP 30 SEP.docx | DOCX document | |
| TacCom_RFP_Sep_29.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_HSSS01-11-R-1001 - Vendor Questions and Answers Sep 29.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_-_Pricing_Matrix - Updated Sept 8 2011.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| TacCom RFP Sep 8.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - DHS TacCom Technical Specifications v30 Sept 7 2011.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Request for Proposal - DHS Tactical Communications.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment 1 - DHS Tactical Communications Technical Specfications.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4 - Pricing Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 11
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
| No. | RFP Section/Attachment | Paragraph | Pages | Comment/Question | Response |
| 1 | Part I, Chapter B, Section A | A.2 | 2 | Where RFP states: "The ordering period of the contracts will be five years…" will the government please provide the start date of the contract terms? | SF 1449, Block 3, provides the "Effective/Award Date" when the IDIQ contract will be available for use by the components. The start date for a specific order will be stated on each order. |
| 2 | Chapter B, Section C | C.27.2.(b) | 23 | Section C.27.2.(b) states: In the event a holiday falls during a project effort, the Government will not pay for travel of Contractor personnel to and from the work area.” Would the Government please clarify that what is meant here is, “In the event a holiday falls during a project effort, the Government will not pay for holiday-related travel of Contractor personnel to and from the work area”? | Concur - revised |
| 3 | Chapter B and Chapter E, Part 2 | F.5 a and 2.10.3 | 30 and 98 | Section F.5 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE states: “Services required under this contract may take place in any of the fifty states, the District of Columbia and any other U.S. territories. In addition, services may be required in any country in which the U.S. Government has a presence. The specific place of performance will be stated in the individual delivery orders [emphasis added].” Section 2.10.3, TAB 3 - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER INFORMATION [page 98], “Include the DUNS number, Tax ID Number, certification of CCR registration, and county name in which the company is located and work is to be performed [emphasis added].” Given that the place of performance is undetermined prior to “the individual delivery orders” [per F.5], should the instruction in 2.10.3 be changed accordingly? | Recommend the Representations and Certifications be completed by inserting the applicable text from F.5. Alternatively, if your company has geographic restrictions regarding performance, that information should be included in this portion rather than using the text from F.5. |
| 4 | Part I, Chapter B, Section H and Attachment 4 | H.2 and TC3 and TC4 | 46 | With reference to H.2 Key Personnel, the RFP states: "“...The Contractor's Program Manager and Teaming Coordinator are designated as key personnel….[emphasis added]”. Since the named positions are not listed in TC3 Infrastructure Services or TC4 O&M Services, Attachment 4 Pricing Matrices, how should they be priced? | We anticipate in the majority of cases these individuals will not be a direct cost and instead will be included in the overhead pool - often applied to direct labor rates. If your cost accounting system differs simply add those rates to the table with a note that you direct charge these positions. |
| 5 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.4 and 2.6 | 2.4 (a) and 2.6 (6) | 88 and 89 | Which address is preferred? | Revised to read: Communications Center (PRO) |
ATTN: Mr. David Keene/Suite 6700 245 Murray Lane, Bldg T-5 Washington, DC 20223
| 6 | Chapter E, Part 2, Sections 2.6 and 2.7 | 1, 3 | 88, 91 | In Section 2.6, DHS states that "Proposals shall use the following font sizes: for body text (11 pt Times New Roman), tables (9pt. Ariel)." In Section 2.7, proposal text is required to be 12 point and tables are to be 10 point. Will the government consider a ruling on required font size as 11 pt Times New Roman for body text, 10 pt Arial for tables, and 8 pt Arial Narrow for graphics? | Concur - revised |
| 7 | Chapter E, Part 2, 2.7(a) | Page limit for Volume 1 | 90 | An Executive Summary is identified in the first sentence, however there is not a placement for this element in Volume 1. Is an Executive Summary required? If so, where within Volume 1 should this be included and is this excluded from the page count? | Inserted as part of the cover letter - page count increased from 2 pages to 5 pages. |
| 8 | Chapter E, Part 2, 2.8.1 | e-mail submission | 92-93 | For the e-mail submission attachment 1, and attachment 2 are we to zip all files included in Volume 1 label as Attachment 1 and zip all Volume 2 files and label as Attachment 2? | Zip files are acceptable. Attachment 1 and 2 should be separate files. Potentially they will have to be sent separately since the total for email attachments may not exceed 5MB. |
| 9 | Chapter E, Part 2, 2.9.3 and Part 3, Section 3.2 | 4, 5 and Table 2 | 94 - 95 and 101 | Tab 3 indicates a limit of 40 pages. Paragraph 4 indicates for offerors proposing multiple categories, the 40-page limit applies separately to each offering. Paragraph 5 indicates a 20-page limit. Is the 20-page limit included in overall 40 pages? If so, does the 20-page limit include responses only to items 1) through 5)? Will the government please clarify the exact page limit and provide a table indicating page limitations for Tab 1 - Cover Letter (2 pages); Tab X - Executive Summary (X pp); Tab 2 - Proposal Compliance List (Not Applicable or N/A); Tab 3 - Product Offering TCX (40/20 or 60 pp); Tab 4 - Corporate Experience (15 pp); Tab 5 - Past Performance (5 pp); Tab 6 - Management and Organization (10 pp); and all subfactors including those in Part 3 Table 2 Evaluation Factors? | Deleted the 20 page limit in para 5. |
| 10 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.3 | All | 94, 95 | In Section 2.9.3, DHS defines Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 as providing a technical response from the perspective of a "product offering." For services-only responses (TC-3 and/or TC-4), please clarify the structure, content, and page count for this Tab 3 "Product Offering" section. | Revised |
| 11 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.3 | Bullet 5 | 95 | In Section 2.9.3, page 95, bullet 5, DHS seeks Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 "Product Offering" to address "[a] description of the offeror's service and maintenance in support of its product offering in accordance with the requirements in Section C, Technical Requirements of this RFP." For services only proposals (TC-3 and/or TC-4), please clarify what offerors are to address in this area. Are we to address our technical approach to TC-3 and TC-4, based on Section C and Attachment 1 requirements? | |
| Revised | |||||
| 12 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.3; Part 3 | All | 94, 95, 106 | Please clarify how Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 content for a services-only proposal is to address the TC-3 and TC-4 evaluation criteria in Chapter 3, Part 3 (page 106) of logistics supportability capabilities, staffing, and risk management strategies for TC-3 and/or TC-4. These criteria are not referenced in the current Section 2.9.3. | |
| Revised | |||||
| 13 | Chapter E, Part 2, Sections 2.9.3, 2.9.6; Part 3 | All | 94, 95, 96, 106 | RFP Chapter E, Part 3, evaluation criteria on page 106 states that Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 content (RFP Section 2.9.3) is to address the TC-3 and TC-4 evaluation criteria of staffing. This is not referenced in the current Section 2.9.3 proposal requirements on pages 94 and 95. Please distinguish between the staffing evaluation factor for Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 (RFP Section 2.9.3) and the staffing requirements to be addressed in Non-Price Proposal Tab 6 (RFP Section 2.9.6, bullet 8) on page 96. | |
| Revised | |||||
| 14 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.4 | 1 | 95 | DHS states that offeror should provide "no more than five recent examples of relevant corporate experience" in this section. Is this five examples of corporate experience for each Technical Category? Or is this five examples of corporate experience total for all combined Technical Categories in the proposal? | |
| Relevance is the key term in this requirement. Some contracts may be relevant to more than one TC while other offerors may need to submit different, relevant examples in order to address each TC being proposed. The limitation is per TC - potentially an offeror proposing all five TCs might submit 25 examples. The information required for each example should fit within the 15 page limit even if 25 examples are offered. | |||||
| 15 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.4 | 1 | 95 | In Section 2.9.4, if the DHS requires five examples of corporate experience for each Technical Category, will the page count be 15 pages for each Technical Category or 15 pages for all Technical Categories combined? | |
| Relevance is the key term in this requirement. Some contracts may be relevant to more than one TC while other offerors may need to submit different, relevant examples in order to address each TC being proposed. The limitation is per TC - potentially an offeror proposing all five TCs might submit 25 examples. The information required for each example should fit within the 15 page limit even if 25 examples are offered. | |||||
| 16 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.5 | 1 | 95 | In Section 2.9.5, DHS states that Attachment 4 is to be used for the customer surveys. This appears to be a typographical error, and should state Attachment 6. Please confirm. | |
| Revised | |||||
| 17 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 | 1 | 96 | For TC3 and TC4, offerors "must also review 3.1 and 4.1 Labor Category Education and Experience and 3.2 and 4.2 Services Documents Lists." Does DHS expect a response for 3.2 and 4.2? If yes, what type of response is expected and will please DHS provide instructions and page limits if applicable? | Answered below |
| 18 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.10.5 | 6 | 99 | Tab 5B - Price Evaluation Model states "The offeror shall provide a completed Chapter D, Attachment 3)…". Will the government clarify reference to Chapter D, Attachment 3 (page 81) is titled "Standards" and change Chapter E to read "Attachment 4"? | Revised |
| 19 | Chapter E, Part 3, Section 3.1 and Part 2, Section 2.8.1(b) | 1 and (b) | 101 and 92 | While directions suggest offerors may submit combined proposal sections, does the government want one proposal, Volume 1, for all technical categories (TCs) proposed that are separated by tabs or would the government prefer a separate proposal for each technical category? The latter would be easier for offerors to prepare, albeit resulting in extra binders and paper, but we believe separate volumes would be easier to manage and easier for evaluators review with a discrete binder for each. Which would the government prefer? | Either solution is acceptable. If submission of separate binders facilitates proposal preparation indicate that duplicate copies of the corporate experience, etc. have been submitted and should not be double counted by the Government for page count limitation purposes. |
| 20 | Chapter E, Part 3, Sections 3.3.1 Non-Price Factor 1: Product Offering and 2.9.3 Tab 3 - Product Offering | Product Offering Subfactors on page 106 and Product Offerings 1-5 on pages 94-95 | 106 and 94-95 | Page 106 of the RFP provides evaluation instructions for Staffing, Logistics Supportability, and Risk Management; but there are no requirements for a detailed description for services in either the evaluation description nor Tab 3. Please provide instructions for how we are to describe our specific services within TC3 and TC4 and identify the page limitations for each of these subfactors. | Revised |
| 21 | Chapter E, Part 3, Section 3.3.4 | ||||
| 1 | 107 | Offeror understands that DHS seeks to solicit the best solutions from offerors both for product and services to support TacCom. In Chapter E, Section 3.3.4, in the past performance evaluation criteria, the DHS states that it "will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine the extent to which it demonstrates successful and high quality performance providing tactical communications (TacCom) equipment to the Federal law enforcement and/or intelligence community." This specifically states providing "equipment" only in the evaluation criteria. Will DHS amend Section 3.3.4 to include services as part of the written evaluation criteria for past performance? | |||
| Revised | |||||
| 22 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | Column C | Under the column "Fully Capable / SME", is the DHS referring to only SMEs or fully capable experience (capabilities) and SMEs? | This column should be checked if the offeror is fully capable of meeting the specification, has extensive depth and breadth of experience, and is considered a subject matter expert. |
| 23 | Attachment 1 and Chapter E, Part 2 | TC3 and TC4 and 2.9.4 | Columns C, D, E and 95 | Does the government expect Attachment 1 to be completed with only the prime's experience; the prime's and the two largest subcontractors' experience ; or the prime's and all team members' experience?' | Offerors are encouraged to prepare the proposal that demonstrates the overall capability they will bring to bear - that may include team members and/or major subcontractors if necessary to fill gaps in the prime's capability. Indicate where the capability is not provided by the prime, in the narrative suggest a discussion of the teaming arrangements, etc. to demonstrate reliability and availability of team member/subcontractors' support. |
| 24 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | Columns C, D, E | In responding to Attachment 1, please confirm that the DHS only seeks a single "check" in the appropriate column C, D, or E ("Compliant," "Partially Compliant," and "Not Compliant") next to the Attachment 1 requirements. | Correct. The column that is most representative of the offerors capabilities should be checked. |
| 25 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | Column F | In responding to Attachment 1, please clarify the response DHS seeks on TC-3 and TC-4 worksheets in Column F "Explanation." Does the DHS expect offerors to provide a description of offerors' approach and experience in the "Explanation" column in Attachment 1 for TC-3 and TC-4 worksheets? If not, is it permissible for offerors to provide such a description to further address their approach and experience? |
| There is no requirement to complete Column F "Explanation". However, offerors may use this column at their discretion to provide comments concerning their capability. Any comments provided in the Explanation field should be brief in nature. | |||||
| 26 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | All | In Attachment 1, TC-3 and TC-4 worksheets, please clarify what response the DHS seeks from offerors for the rows "Labor Category/Job Qualifications" and the associated labor category descriptions. | |
| Please provide a check indicating the level to which your staff meet the specified qualifications. | |||||
| 27 | Attachment 1 | TC4 work-sheet | Row 4 | In responding to Attachment 1, TC-4 worksheet, row 4, DHS requires that "Contractor shall provide a toll-free telephone number for DHS end-users to call-in for support and/or questions during normal business hours, Monday through Friday." Please clarify whether such "normal business hours" are only for the time zones in the contiguous United States (48 states), or whether such "normal business hours" also include the Alaskan and Hawaiian time zones. | |
| Normal business hours are only for CONUS. Any requirement for support for time zones outside of CONUS will be specified in individual delivery orders. | |||||
| 28 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | File | Does the government want the completed file to be submitted in the Excel format, as provided or will the government accept MS Word tables? | Please submit your proposal in the same format as the attachments. |
| 29 | Attachment 6 – Contractor Performance Customer Survey | Attachment 6 | Attachment 6 | The Contractor Performance Customer Survey requires that the survey be completed and returned to DHS by September 23rd, 3 weeks prior to the submission of the RFP. Due to the linked nature of the surveys and our past performance write-up, can this date for survey submission be changed to be concurrent with the submission of the proposal? | Revised to read: 5:00 PM Friday, October 14, 2011 |
| 30 | Attachment 8 | Team Member Information | 175-176 | In the Attachment 8 Proposal Preparation Checklist, Team Member Information section, DHS has provided areas where offerors are to provide information on four team members defined as "Team Member (A)" through "Team Member (D)." Please clarify the intent of this portion of the checklist. Is this to include all subcontractors, or only our "largest subcontractors"? If there are more than four team members, can the offerors simply add more columns to this checklist? Please clarify. | This pertains to FAR 9.6 which states, in part: |
9.603 -- Policy. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective.
| 31 | Attachment 8 | Attachment 8 | File | Does the government want the completed file to be submitted in the Excel format or will the government accept MS Word tables? | MS Word tables are acceptable. |
| 32 | The change in NAICS code for TC4 O&M Services from 334220 (within Small Business Employee Threshold of 750 employees) to 541330 (within Small Business Track - Dollar Threshold of $4.5 million) has seriously impacted our ability to respond. Over the last several months MorganFranklin has worked to build an outstanding team capable of providing DHS with excellent O&M Services, with the understanding that we were competing under NAICS code 334220. With the change to NAICS code 541330, this team is no longer viable. Persisting with the new NAICS code for O&M Services effectively precludes mid-size firms from priming competitive and compelling teams, and will lead to DHS receiving fewer proposals, narrowing their range of potential contractors and solutions. We request that DHS reconsider this change in NAICS codes. | Based on a careful review of each NAIC code description, the correct NAICS codes is as follows: |
• TC3: 541330 Engineering Services (no change) – In reviewing the full description of this NAICS on the US Census Bureau web page, in addition to design and development services, this NAICS code specifically lists “provision of technical services during the construction or installation phase” and “construction engineering services” as part of the services included. In contrast, the NAICS code proposed by the vendor (237130 – Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction) is relevant only to constructions (it does not include any associated services) and more focused on utility system construction.
• TC4: 811213 Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance (changed)(dollar threshold of $10.0M) - In reviewing the full description of this NAICS on the US Census Bureau web page, this is the closest NAICS to the actual work represented in TC4 because it includes maintenance, which is a significant portion of TC4. 541330 Engineering Services would not be appropriate because there is no element of maintenance included in its description.
| 33 | In the draft RFP the NAICS code that was provided was NAICS 334220, where the small business size standard was an employee threshold of 750 employees. In the final RFP, the associated NAICS code has changed to NAICS 541330, where the small business size standard is a dollar threshold of $4.5 million. Can you validate that the NAICS 541330 is the correct code and the change was not a unintentional error in the Final RFP? | The draft RFP was posted to solicit industry comments. One comment received correctly pointed out that 334220 is a NAICS code for manufacturing rather than services. Discussion with our Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Specialist revealed that NAICS 541330 is the correct code for the required services. Hopefully your team will consider submitting a proposal under the unrestricted track. | |||
| 34 | In paragraph 2.9 on page 93, the RFP states that we are allowed 30 additional pages for each additional technical category we are proposing. In paragraph 2.9.3 on page 94, the RFP states the page limit of 40 applies to each additional TC. Which is correct – 30 pages or 40 pages for each additional TC? | Revised. The page limit for each technical category is 40 pages. | |||
| 35 | Chapter B, Section H and Chapter E, Part 2 | H.20 and 2.10.2 Tab 2 | 57 and 98 | Please clarify the VOSB subcontractor goals. In Chapter B, Section H.20, DHS has a VOSB subcontracting goal of 6 percent. In Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.10.2 the instructions for the subcontracting plan does not list this VOSB percentage. Which is correct? | Although there is no statutory goal for Veteran-Owned small business (VOSB) concerns, a VOSB goal must be proposed in accordance with FAR 19.7 and should represent the offeror’s effort to provide the maximum practicable subcontracting opportunities for VOSBs. The applicable paragraph has been clarified. The VOSB goal will not be included in the evaluation of acceptability of the subcontracting plan. |
| 36 | Chapter B, Section H and Chapter E, Part 2 | H.21 and 2.10.2 Tab 2 | 56-57 and 98 | Section H.21 states "…The plan shall be submitted as part of Volume 1 (see provision L.3 Order Management) while Section 2.10.2 Tab 2 states subcontracting plan is in Volume 2. Will the government please clarify that Volume 2 should include the subcontracting plan? | Tab 2 is the correct location. H.21 revised. |
| 37 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 and Chapter B, Section G | 2.9.6, item (1); and G.6 and G.6.1 | 96 and 43 | Section 2.9.6 item (1) states "An organizational chart for the contract and all lines of authority, including the authority delegated to the contract manager and /or project manager…". Will the government clarify if contract manager and/or project manager are one and the same position? Further, Section G.6 asks contractor to identify a "Contract Administrator and Program Manager who shall have authority to make contract and technical decisions respectively regarding this contract." Should offerors use title in Section 2.9.6 or G.6 to show lines of authority in the organizational chart? Will the government also clarify that these position(s) are not key and whether we need to provide name(s)/resume(s) in response to Section 2.9.6 or simply show them in organizational chart? | All references have been changed to program manager and contract manager. Key personnel are identified in clause H.2. - the program manager and teaming coordinator are listed and resumes are required. They may be the same individual. |
| 38 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 and Chapter B, Section F | 2, item (4) and F.7 and F.9 | 96 and 30-32 | Will the government please clarify if Section F.7 Deliverables is for informational purposes? Does the government expect responses to Section 2.9.6 item (4) to address F.X Reporting Requirements and its subparagraphs? | Clause F.7 is informational. The reports indicated are required by Clause C.7. RE: 2.9.6(4) it has been corrected to reference F.7. and you should address your management approach and organization to address the reporting requirements. |
| 39 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 and Chapter B, Section F | 2, item (4) and F.9 | 96 and 32 | Section 2.9.6 Tab 6 - Management and Organization, item (4) references Section F.5 Reporting Requirements. Section F shows F.9 as Reporting Requirements. Which is correct? | F.9 has been deleted. Reporting requirements are summarized in F.7.(g) with linkages to where additional information may be found (e.g. para C.7.X) |
| 40 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 and Chapter B, Section F | 2, item (4) and F.9 | 96 and 32 | Does the government want all of section F.9 (F.9.1 – F.9.2) addressed or only F.9.1, IDIQ Level Reporting? | F.9 has been deleted. Refer to F.7(g) for a summary of reporting requirements. |
| 41 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 and Chapter B, Section C | 2, item (5), C.19 and C.22 | 96, 17-18, and 19-21, respective-ly | Does the government want all of section C.19 and C.22 addressed or a high level Quality Control Plan? If the government would like a detailed plan covering all of C.19 and C.22, would the government consider excluding the Quality Control Plan from the 10 page limit? 10 pages for TAB 6—Management and Organization to include the Quality Control Plan would not be sufficient. | Revised. The quality control plan will not count towards the page count limitation. |
| 42 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.6 and Chapter B, Section G.6 | 2, item (8) | 96 and 43-44 | Section 2.9.6 item (8) Staffing designate key personnel as Program Manager and Teaming Coordinator. Section G.6 discusses a Contract Administrator and Program Manager who have the authority to make decisions for this contract. The Contract Administrator shall have full authority to act for the contractor in all contractual matters. The contract administrator is not listed as key. Will the government please clarify if this augments key personnel and is designated as a position to be filled post-award? | The Contract Administrator or Contract Manager will not be identified as key personnel. |
| 43 | Chapter E, Part 3, Section 3.3.4 | 1 | 107 | Section 3.3.4 Non-Price Factor 4: Past performance suggests that the past performance work should be for Federal Law Enforcement and/or intelligence community. Much of the work on the TacCom contract will NOT be for law enforcement and/or the intel community, which means that many highly relevant contracts would not be considered. Moreover, intel contracts, even those with exceptional performance, often can not be used in a proposal. Will DHS consider the most relevant and compelling references and, thus, all past performance to be permitted and evaluated based on its technical and operational relevance? | Revised to include emergency response organizations (like FEMA). Revised to indicate "sufficient to meet the needs of Federal …". |
| 44 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | TC3: Rows 80-87; TC4: Rows 189-199 | Please clarify the DHS intent in requiring Site Lease services in TC3 Attachment 1 spreadsheet (DHS rows 80-87) and Tower Lease services in TC4 Attachment 1 spreadsheet (DHS rows 189-199). In the referenced rows, many of the requirements are identical or very similar. | TC3 deals with new infrastructure builds and hence new leases while TC4 deals with operating and maintaining existing site leases. Many of the required functions do indeed overlap. The difference is in actions to enter into and obtain leases, while the other deals with the ongoing O&M of those leases (and potentially of existing leases). Since each TC will be evaluated independently during source selection, some repetition may occur under each TC. Each TC is structured to be awarded independent of the other TCs. For example, a contractor may be awarded TC3, but not TC4. |
| 45 | Attachment 1 | TC3 and TC4 | Multiple rows | For Attachment 1 rows following labor category descriptions in TC3 and TC4, please advise how DHS seeks offerors to address these requirements in Attachment 1. After a labor category description, these rows are described repeatedly in Attachment 1 as "See additional requirements below." There are a significant number of these "additional requirements" and offeror is seeking to ensure we have clear instructions from DHS on required response for these. These requirements following labor categories in TC3 and TC4 worksheets of Attachment 1 are provided on the following DHS rows. TC3 worksheet: Rows 7, 9, 18-21, 31, 40, 90-92, 101-102, 112-118, 120-125, 127-128, 143-144, 146-148, 157-159, 161, 163. TC4 worksheet: Rows 27-30, 32-34, 113-119, 137-141, 144-148, 150-152, 169-175, 178-181, 184-187, 203-209, 212-216, 218-221, 240, 243-245, 270-273, 275-278, 322-326, 329-332, 349-352, 355-358, 373-378, 381-387, 416-424, 444-449, 452-457, 473-483, 496-500. | |
| The labor category descriptions identify the qualifications required for the position. The additional requirements typically identifies relevant experience. Offerors should provide a checkmark in each row indicating how well they meet the qualification or experience specified. | |||||
| 46 | Attachment 1 | TC4 | DHS Row 4, General Require-ments | In the "General Requirements" section for TC4, DHS states "Contractor shall provide a toll-free telephone number for DHS end-users to call-in for support and/or questions during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. Call waiting and voicemail services will also be provided." Will DHS also require a help desk component as part of the TC4 requirements? Or should the offeror assume that the Subscriber Repair service area of TC will be where such end-user help desk level support and questions will be handled? | |
| The approach on how to provide these services is left to the offeror to address in their proposal. The offeror can propose alternate solutions to track work progress and notify DHS. In general, the government needs mechanisms to report problems/questions and to get support, and the vendor needs a mechanism to track and report such inquiries back to the gov't. It will be up to each DHS Component as to specify exactly how those inquiries will come from their Component . | |||||
| 47 | Attachment 1 | TC4 | DHS Row 14, KMF/ OTAR Support | The offeror assumes that the infrastructure costs associated with KMF/OTAR connectivity to DHS tactical communications facilities and maintenance of test Key Management Controller will be requirements for the TacCom IDIQ offeror awarded KMF/OTAR task orders, not for all TC4 offerors. Please confirm. | Confirmed. If this is not a support you intend to provide you would simply not bid on any solicitations for those services at the order level. |
| 48 | Attachment 1 | TC4 | DHS Row 2, General Require-ments | In the "General Requirements" section for TC4, DHS states vendors are to provide "all necessary equipment, parts, accessories..." for radio maintenance. Is it DHS' intent to obtain "equipment, parts, accessories" from TC4 offerors as part of TC4 task orders? We understand that DHS has other TacCom technical categories for such products. Please clarify. | |
| The offeror needs to provide all necessary equipment, parts, accessories, etc. to effectively maintain the specified Tac Com equipment. DHS will not provide this equipment to the offeror in support of O&M activities. | |||||
| 49 | Attachment 1 | TC4 | DHS Row 2, General Require-ments | In the "General Requirements" section for TC4, DHS states vendors are to provide "all necessary equipment, parts, accessories..." for radio maintenance. Will "DHS equipment in inventory" used for subscriber and infrastructure systems be used to support such radio maintenance. Please clarify. | If there will be Government Furnished Property (such as DHS equipment in inventory) is will be stated on the solicitation at the order level. For planning purposes, you should address you capability to provide everything needed as contractor furnished - with flexibility to use government furnished if available. |
| 50 | Attachment 1 | TC4 | DHS Row 2, General Require-ments | In the "General Requirements" section for TC4, DHS states "Contractor must be able to support (potentially) more than 20,000 repairs or maintenance actions annually for tactical communications equipment, radios, and ancillary equipment associated with a nationwide radio communications system." The offeror understands this support level refers to the O&M service areas described in TC4, but does not include the actual "equipment, parts, accessories" that DHS will be obtaining through other TacCom technical categories or from DHS inventory. Please clarify. | If there will be Government Furnished Property (such as DHS equipment in inventory) is will be stated on the solicitation at the order level. For planning purposes, you should address you capability to provide everything needed as contractor furnished - with flexibility to use government furnished if available. |
| 51 | Attachment 4 | Excel File | All | Attachment 4 Pricing Sheets was set up with an A4 page size. Can the format be revised to format the pages as 8.5 x 11 landscaped? We have also noticed that tab labeled 1-Subscriber has a font size of 11 pt, please confirm that font in these sheets can be Arial 10. | Questions regarding font have been clarified in the RFP. Concur with printing 8.5 x 11 - I believe when you go to the print menu in Excel it gives the options of printing landscape and fitting it to 1 page wide by XX pages tall. |
| 52 | Chapter B, Section C.2.1.3 and Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.3 | C.2.1.3 - all; 2.9.3 - item (5) | 9, 95 | Please clarify how offerors are to address the requirements of RFP Section C.2.1.3 in the Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 for TC3. The RFP Section 2.9.3 instructions for Non-Price Proposal Tab 3, Item 5 requires that offerors provide a "description of the offeror's service and maintenance in support of its product offering in accordance with the requirement in Section C, Technical Requirements of this RFP." In RFP Section C.2.1.3, DHS states that TC3 infrastructure services are defined as "the operational areas as specified in Attachment 1, Tabs 3.0 and 3.1." For RFP Section 2.9.3, item 5, are offerors to address TC3 infrastructures services in Attachment 1? Please clarify. | Answered elsewhere - RFP revised |
| 53 | Chapter B, Section C.2.1.4; Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.3 | C.2.1.4 - all; 2.9.3 - item (5) | 10, 95 | Please clarify how offerors are to address the requirements of RFP Section C.2.1.4 in the Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 for TC4. The RFP Section 2.9.3 instructions for Non-Price Proposal Tab 3, Item 5 requires that offerors provide a "description of the offeror's service and maintenance in support of its product offering in accordance with the requirement in Section C, Technical Requirements of this RFP." In RFP Section C.2.1.4, DHS states that TC4 operations and maintenance services are defined as "the operational areas as specified in Attachment 1, Tabs 4.0 and 4.1." For RFP Section 2.9.3, item 5, are offerors to address TC4 infrastructures services in Attachment 1? Please clarify. | Answered elsewhere - RFP revised |
| 54 | Chapter E, Part 2, Section 2.9.3 | item (3) | 94 | Does this apply to TC3 and TC4, technical services categories? If yes, will the government define what is meant by “additional offered capabilities or features”? Are these “additional offered capabilities or features” listed in Section C? If yes, which Section C items are to be addressed? | Answered elsewhere - RFP revised. It does not apply to TC 3 and 4. |
| 55 | Chapter B, Section H and Chapter C, Section I, Parts 1 and 4 | H.16 and H.17, H.28 and 52.204-10, 52.219-8, 52.212-3 (c)(7) | 55, 64, 70, 74, and 112 | Section H paragraphs denote "…any tier." Further, Section I clauses in Parts I and 4 indicate terms such as "...first-tier subcontract awards..." and "...lower tier." It is our understanding from earlier clarifications that these type of designations were to be omitted. Will the government please clarify we are to only designate large or small business types and not use terms such as tier? | Review of the Draft RFP Q&A did not reveal prior comments regarding use of the term "tier". The requirements of FAR clauses 52.204-10, 52.219-8 or 52.212-3 are not modified by this solicitation. |
| 56 | Attachment 1 | TC3 work-sheet | Rows 150-174 | In Attachment 1 for TC3, please clarify why DHS has two functional areas entitled "Project Closeout Activities," with one set beginning on DHS Row 150 and a second set beginning on DHS Row 165. The second set of "Project Closeout Activities" on the TC3 worksheet beginning at DHS Row 165 appears to be addressing equipment installation. Was the intent of this section to address hand-offs between vendors during ongoing installation processes? Was this intended to be part of "Project Closeout Activities"? Please clarify this requirement. | The second "Project Closeout Activities" header has been changed to "Project Management." |
| 57 | Attachment 4 and Chapter B, Section G.5.3 | Attachment 4 - TC3 and TC4 worksheets and Section G.5.3 item (e) | Attachment 4 - TC3 and TC4 work-sheets and page 39 | In the Attachment 4 pricing spreadsheet, for service areas TC3 (Infrastructure Services) and TC4 (operations and maintenance services), Attachment 4 only includes labor category pricing categories, with no areas for Other Direct Costs. In accordance with Chapter B, Section G.5.3 (Delivery/Task Order Solicitation Process), DHS states that task order cost/pricing proposals are to include "all resources required to accomplish the task." The offeror assumes that Other Direct Costs not included in the Attachment 4 pricing spreadsheets for TC3 and TC4 will be required as part of task order cost/pricing proposals from successful contract awardees. Please confirm or clarify. | Attachment 4 is for source selection evaluation only - it is used to compute an evaluated price for comparison of representative prices - it is not designed to include every price element. |
| 58 | Teaming Agreements | N/A | N/A | Are Teaming Agreements a required submission? If so, would the government provide instructions on where they should be placed and if they will be excluded from the page count? | Attachment 8. This pertains to FAR 9.6 which states, in part: |
9.603 -- Policy. The Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective.
| 59 | Section A – Executive Summary | A.3 Contract Coverage, Paragraph 4 | 3 | Per FAR 19.5 and attached supporting documents, the government has been made aware that there is a reasonable expectation that two or more small businesses can meet the minimum requirements set forth in this RFP and therefore request the implementation of a small business track inside of TC1. | Revised to created a small business track for TC1. |
| 60 | Section G - Contract Administration Date | G.5 Delivery/Task Order Solicitation, Paragraph 1 | 37 | What is the criteria to utilize a catalog based competition and how are those solicitations evaluated and awarded? | If a SOW is not required; less than $5M; no need for discussions; adequate price competition exists are among the criteria. That will be unique to individual requirements. Low priced would be common; however, there is no prohibition against a best value award. In accordance with Section 843 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) all delivery order RFP’s in excess of $5 Million shall include: |
1. Evaluation factors and sub-factors including cost or price with relative order of importance
2. Basis for Award
3. Provide opportunity for a post-award debriefing upon request
| 61 | Chapter E - Solicitations Provisions, Attachments | Attachment 6 - Contractor Performance Customer Survey | 146 | What is the minimum/maximum number of customer surveys required? | Please refer to chapter E, Part 2, para 2.9.4 and 2.9.5. In summary please provide surveys for each example provided under 2.9.4. Corporate Experience. There is no minimum, the maximum is no more than 5 examples for each TC being proposed. Note that some, or all, examples may apply to more than one TC. |
| 62 | Section C - Technical Requirements | C.5 Technology Refreshment Requirements | 10 | Does the government require proposers to submit end of production date and or end of support date for products that may reach end of life during contract base/option years? | DES Encryption may still be required as part of interoperability while federal agencies transition wholly or in part to the AES standard. |
| 63 | Section C - Technical Requirements | C.5 Technology Refreshment Requirements | 10 | Does the government have any restrictions on proposing products that will reach end of life status during contract base/option years? | Offeror's should provide the government with end of production/support dates during the contract/base/option years as part of their submission. |
| 64 | Section A.1 Type of Contract, Pg. 2 and Section B.3 Pricing, Pg. 4 | Section A.1 states that the contract is being issued under FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. Section B.3 states that the pricing shall be a discount off of GSA Schedule and/or commercial catalog pricing. However, Section B.3 also states that the task orders will be fixed price, Time and Materials or cost reimbursement. Since GSA Schedule and/or Commercial catalog pricing are not based on cost and/or pricing data (as expressed in FAR Part 15), Cost Reimbursement task orders would seem not to be applicable under this contract since the rates being offered are not based upon cost disclosure which is the requirement for Cost Reimbursable task orders. Please clarify. Will FAR Part 8 be incorporated into the Contract? | B.3 has been revised to eliminate reference to cost reimbursement and reference reimbursement of travel costs pursuant to FAR 52.212-4 Alt 1. In addition, that clause has been annotated to bring it to the attention of the DO CO. Whether fixed price or T&M the cost limitation of FAR Part 31 should still be applicable. The resultant contact is compliance with all applicable portions of the FAR and DHS FAR Supplement (HSAR) to include Part 8. If you are referring to incorporation of any FAR 52.208-XXX clauses - no applicable clauses have been identified for inclusion under a FAR Part 12 acquisition. | ||
| 65 | Chapter E, Section 2.4 Submission of Offers, Paragraph (b), Pg. 92 Synopsis, Paragraph 6, Pg. 3 | Section 2.4, Paragraph (B) states that the proposals are due on the date specified in Block 8 of the SF 1449 at 2:00 p.m. EST.; however, there is no time specified in the SF 1449, and the time stated in the Synopsis is 5 p.m. EST. Which one of these submission times is correct 2 p.m. or 5 p.m.? | 5PM - revisions have been made. | ||
| 66 | Chapter E, Section 2.6 Instruction for Proposal Preparation, paragraph (b), pg 92 Section 2.7 Paper Copies, paragraph (c), Pg. 95 | Section 2.6 states that proposals shall use the following font sizes: for body text (11 pt Times New Roman), tables (9pt Ariel), and graphics (8 pt. Ariel). The instructions in Section 2.7 state that printed letters shall be 12 pt, tables 10 pt font, and graphics 8 pt font. Which font size is correct for body text and tables? Recommend using font sizes: for body text (11 pt Times New Roman), tables (9pt Ariel), and graphics (8 pt. Ariel), | Answered above. | ||
| 67 | Chapter E, Section 2.9 Volume 1 – Non Price, Paragraph 1, Pg. 97 Section 2.9.3 Tab 3 Product Offering, Paragraph 4, Pg. 99 | Section 2.9 states that the page limit is 75 for the first technical category in the proposal plus an additional 30 pages for each additional technical category, but in 2.9.3 Tab 3 - Product Offering, it states that; if the offeror is proposing on multiple technical categories, the page limit applies separately to each offering (40 for TC1, 40 for TC2, etc.), and for product offerings (limit 20 pages, excluding slick sheets). For those vendors submitting TC3 and TC4, please clarify which page counts are correct. | Answered above. | ||
| 68 | Chapter E, Section 2.9.2 TAB 2 – Proposal Compliance Checklist, Pg. 98 | The proposal checklist for Volume I - Non Price also includes the proposal checklist for Volume II – Price. Should the checklist be separated and each checklist added to the appropriate volumes? | You may separate the checklists or include a complete, duplicate checklist with each volume. | ||
| 69 | Chapter E, Section 2.9.3 Tab 3 – Product Offering, Pg. 98 | In Section 2.9.3 Tab 3 Product Offering, the instructions appear to apply to proposing TC 1, 2, and 5. Please clarify what is required for Tab 3 TC3 and Tab 4 TC4. | Answered elsewhere - RFP revised | ||
| 70 | Section 2.9.6 (8) Tab 6 Management and Organization, Pg. 101, Section 3.3.1 Product Offering Sub Factor Staffing, Pg. 107 | Approach to staffing (recruiting, training and retaining qualified/cleared personnel) is being evaluated according to Section 3.3.1 Product Offering Sub Factor Staffing as part of Tab 3. Section 2.9.6(8) appears to require this section in Tab 6 Management and Organization. Please confirm that this response goes under Tab 3. | Revised. Under Management & Organization we are looking for information on the Key Personnel for all TCs. Under Product Offering for TC 3 and 4 only we are looking for the recruiting, training and retaining approach for the services employees who will be performing under the task orders. | ||
| 71 | Section H.7 Status Meetings, Pg. 56 | There is an assumption that meetings will be held via teleconference. Should there be a requirement for face to face meetings, will the government reimburse travel expenses? | Any required travel would be pursuant to H.10. | ||
| 72 | Attachment 1 Vendor Capabilities Matrix, Tab TC3, Pg. 17 and Tab TC4, Pg. 22 | What are the instructions for completing columns C, D, and E; and what type of explanation is required under Column F for TC3 and TC4? Please clarify the type of information required under the headings below. | Offerors should provide a checkmark in the column indicating how well they meet each qualification or experience specified. Although not required, you may include a narrative at the bottom linked to the labor category if you have a plan to mitigate any gaps in experience. |
| 73 | Chapter B, Section C.2.1.3; Chapter E, Section 2.9.3; Chapter E, Part 3, Section 3.3.1; Attachment 1-TC4 | TC4 worksheet | C.2.1.3, page 10; 2.9.3, page 94; 3.3.1, page 106, TC4 worksheet | For Non-Price Proposal Tab 3, offeror seeks further clarification on the required response format and page count for Technical Category 4 (TC4). In RFP Chapter B, Section C.2.1.3, page 10, DHS states that Offeror "shall provide any and all operations and maintenance (O&M) solutions, processes, and procedures" to address "the operational areas as specified in Attachment 1, Tabs 4.0 and 4.1." In the RFP Chapter E instruction for the Non-Price Proposal, RFP Section 2.9.3 allows for 40 pages for a response to TC4. However, as most of the Section 2.9.3 instructions are oriented towards a "product offering," it is not clear as to the instructions for a TC4 proposal for Non-Price Tab 3. The TC4 requirements in Attachment 1 alone represent 28 pages of text of service requirements with 26 major categories of service topics. In addition to these 28 pages of TC4 Attachment 1 requirements, it appears that the evaluation criteria in Chapter E, Part 3, Section 3.3.1 (page 106), requires the offeror to address staffing, logistics supportability capabilities, and risk management factors in this same Non-Price Proposal Tab 3 for TC4. For their TC4 response, are offerors to address their solutions, processes, and procedures in the non-page limited Attachment 1 or as part of the 40 pages for Non-Price Proposal Tab 3? Please clarify the required proposal content, page limitations, and structure for the TC4 response for Non-Proposal Proposal Tab 3. | Answered elsewhere - RFP revised |
| 74 | RFP Section 2.6, Paragraph 1, Page 88 and RFP Section 2.7.c, Paragraph c, Pages 90-91. | Discussion: The solicitation appears to contain conflicting requirements on font point size for the Offeror’s proposal body text. RFP Section 2.6, Paragraph 1, Page 88 states, “Proposals shall use the following font sizes: for body text (11 pt Times New Roman), while RFP Section 2.7.c, Paragraph c, Pages 90-91 states, “The printed letters shall be 12 point font (with the exception of pre-printed product literature).” |
Question: Will DHS please confirm what font and point size the Offeror must use for proposal body text?
| Answered above. | |||
| 75 | RFP Section 2.6, Paragraph 1, Page 88 and RFP Section 2.7.c, Paragraph c, Pages 90-91. | Discussion: The solicitation appears to contain conflicting requirements on font point size for table text in the Offeror’s proposal. RFP Section 2.6, Paragraph 1, Page 88 states, “Proposals shall use the following font sizes: …tables (9pt. Arial), while RFP Section 2.7.c, Paragraph c, Page 91 states, “…and 10 point font on tables. Question: Will the DHS please confirm what font and point size the Offeror must use for proposal table text? | Answered above. |
| 76 | RFP Section 2.7.d, Paragraph d, Page 91 | Discussion: The solicitation requirements for submission of paper copies of commercial catalogs or GSA schedules is unclear. RFP Section 2.7.d, Paragraph d, Page 91, states, “Paper copies of voluminous commercial catalogs or GSA schedules need to be provided as long as they are available electronically.” |
Question a: Does the DHS mean to state that, “Paper copies of voluminous commercial catalogs or GSA schedules need not be provided as long as they are available electronically.”
Question b: Will the DHS confirm that paper copies of voluminous commercial catalogs and GSA schedules do not have to be included in the paper submission of the proposal, as long as the material is available electronically (on the CD copy and in the email submission)?
| Answered above. | |||||
| 77 | RFP Section B3 Pricing, Page 4 | The solicitation states: “Delivery Orders will be issued on a fixed price, time and materials, or cost reimbursement basis. Equipment shall be fixed price, ancillary services will be time and materials and travel costs associated with services shall be reimbursed at actual cost.” Question a: Is the intent for all services, even if ancillary to a product order, be Time and Materials based? Question b: Will the Government allow ancillary services to be provided as a Firm Fixed Price in conjunction with equipment? Question c: Will the Government consider, at a task order level, under service categories (i.e. TC3 and TC4) to be proposed and performed as a Firm Fixed Price? | Revised to include a fixed price alternative for services. Note that for proposal purposes where labor rates are requested it is important to be responsive to the solicitation to enable evaluation of competitive offers. | ||
| 78 | 3.2, 3.3, 3.3.1 101, 103-106 | Section 3.2 Table 2: Evaluation Factors Non-Price Factors. Subfactor order within the "Product Offering" category is represented in a list in the following sequence: Security Standards, Specifications, Life Cycle Support, Logistics Supportability Capabilities, Staffing, and Risk Management Strategies. In Section 3.3 Table 2, the same sequence is used to present the Subfactor Order for that section. However, in Section 3.3.1, the Subfactor sequence is: Security Standards, Specifications, Life Cycle Support, Staffing, Logistics Supportability Capabilities, and Risk Management Strategies. Which means the order of the subfactors Staffing and Logistics Supportability Capabilities are reversed as compared to the order that appears in the two tables. Question: In what order should these Evaluation Subfactors appear? | 3.3.1 revised - staffing moved lower than logistics supportability. |
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 .