2019.05.21_Solicitation_Question__Answer.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 606 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Architecture, Data, and Engineering (EADE) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC71119RD007
About this file
This document is a solicitation for an Enterprise Architecture, Data, and Engineering (EADE) contract opportunity with the Department of Defense United States Transportation Command. The solicitation seeks proposals for enterprise architecture support services including architecture development, maintenance and synchronization, tool development and sustainment, engineering support, and data management. Offerors must propose labor rates for various labor categories to provide the required services. The Government intends to award a single-award, firm-fixed price IDIQ contract with a one-year base period of performance and two six-month option periods. Proposals are due by 5:00 PM Eastern Time on May 31, 2019. The Government will evaluate proposals based on technical approach, past performance, and cost/price factors.
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 29
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
Sheet1 Enterprise Architecture, Data, and Engineering HTC71119RD007
| Reference Solicitation page | Reference Section/Paragraph/ Attachment | Offeror Question/Comment | Answer | |||
| 22 | Attachment 1, PWS, paragraph 13, Place of Performance | In the PWS, under place of performance, it reads "The Government will designate space within USTRANSCOM for up to 70 personnel, within AMC up to 4 personnel, and within SDDC up to 7 personnel working on-site," which equals 81 Government site personnel. In the pricing template, the annual hours add up to 93.25 Government site personnel assuming each FTE is 1880 hours. Which number is actual number of Government site personnel? | Personnel located at the Government site will be dependent on the vendor's solution proposed and negotiated at task order execution. | |||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph b, Volume II - Technical/Management Volume | The general outline calls for "3) Architecture, Diagrams, etc.", yet it appears all example products are requested to be part of Subfactors 1-4, and there is no amplifying guidance for area 3) (paragraph E below?). Can the Government please provide additional guidance on what it is looking for in section "3) Architecture, Diagrams, etc."? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||
| 28 | Solicitation, Paragraph c, Volume V - Past Performance | In the table on page 25, Past Performance is Volume III. Is this supposed to be Volume V or III? | The Past Performance Volume should be Volume III vice V. | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph d, Volume VI - Cost/Price | In the table on page 25, Cost/Price is Volume IV. Is this supposed to be Volume VI or IV? | The Cost/Price Volume should be Volume IV vice VI. | |||
| 30 | Solicitation, Paragraph e, Volume VII Contract Documentation | In the table on page 25, Contract Documentation is Volume V, and its called Additional Requirements. Is this supposed to be Volume VII - Contract Documentation or Volume V - Additional Requirements? | The Contract Documentation should be Volume V vice VII. | |||
| 31 | Solicitation, Paragraph h, DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification | The RFQ states “Block 6 of the DD254 shall have the prime contractor information, to include their CAGE code, which shall match the CAGE code submitted on the rest of the proposal documents…. Completed DD254s must be submitted with proposals, Attachment 9.” However, Block 6 of the DD254 states “Completion of this block is not approved for solicitations”. Can the gov't please clarify this discrepancy in DD254 instruction? | The DD254 has been updated to remove text in Block 6. | |||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv, subparagraph a, Technical Management Approach | The table indicates a 45 page limit for Technical Management Approach (Subfactors 2 - 4). There are three artifacts requested as part of Subfactor 2 - Architecture (v.b)B.). Due to the extensive number of pages and outsized page requirement needed to respond effectively, will the Government allow these to be outside of page count? Additionally, would the Government accept the OV illustrations in Visio as a separately submitted file? | The 45 page limit remains the same; however, the solicitation has been updated to exclude Subfactor 2 (ii) from the page limits. | |||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv, subparagraph a, Past Performance | The table indicates a 12 page limit for Past Performance Information Sheets. Bidders are allowed to submit up to five (5) past performance references. Recent RFQs limited page count by past performance (e.g. 3 pages per past performance). Would the Government consider a page count limitation per past performance vice a total for all past performances? | Page limitation for the Past performance Information sheet will remain at 12 pages. | |||
| 26 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, subparagraph a Volume I - Executive Summary | Will the evaluators have access to Volume I - Executive Summary which provides bidder teaming information? | The Source Selecton team will not have access to Volume I, but will be made aware of any teaming arrangements. | |||
| 28 | Solicitation, Paragraph c, Volume V - Past Performance | Instructions state, If providing an example(s) for a subcontractor, the prime offeror shall clearly state what areas the proposed subcontractor is expected to perform in support of EADE. There appears to be no place on the Past Performance Information Sheet set aside to cover this requirement. Would the Government provide expanded instruction on where to place this information? | Attachment 4 has been updated. | |||
| Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Sheet | The attachment is in a PDF format. Would the Government provide a MS Word version to simplify filling in all fields? | No | ||||
| Attachment 5 - Past Performance Reference Sheet | The attachment is in a PDF format. Would the Government provide a MS Word version to simplify filling in all fields? | No | ||||
| Attachment 6 - Past Performance Questionnaire Form | The attachment is in a PDF format. Would the Government provide a MS Word version to simplify filling in all fields? | No | ||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Category Descriptions | Atch 7 contains labor categories for Enterprise Architect, SME and Enterprise Architect, Director. Atch 8 contains these two labor categories but also has labor category Enterprise Architect, Level 4-Master. Can the Government please clarify whether the Level 4-Master is valid for this RFQ and if so add this to Atch 7? | Attachment 8 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Category Descriptions | Atch 7 contains three (3) levels of Systems Architects (Journeyman, Senior, and SME). Atch 8 lists Systems Architect with Journeyman and Senior levels, but no SME. There is however a Director level. Could the Government resolve this difference? | Attachment 8 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Cat Descriptions | Atch 7 contains two (2) levels of Data Architects (SME and Senior). Atch 8 contains three (3) Data Architect descriptions (Senior w/ Bach, Senior w/Master, and SME. Could the Government resolve this difference? | Attachment 8 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Cat Descriptions | Atch 7 contains a Database Analyst/Specialist, SME. Atch 8 contains a Database Analyst, Level 4-Master. Could the Government resolve this difference? | Attachment 8 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Cat Descriptions | Atch 7 labor categories are labeled under the LC# as 1, 2, and 4 through 27. Would the Government confirm if there may be a missing labor category? | Attachment 7 has been updated. | ||||
| General | Will the government confirm that the small business size of the Prime offeror will be based on a previous 5-year average revenue, in accordance with the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018 ( H.R. 6330, Became public law no: 115-324 on 12/17/2018)? | The Government is required to abide by the FAR; as such, the term "Annual Receipts," as defined in FAR 19.101, will be used to determine the average gross revenue. | ||||
| General | Will the government confirm if limitations on subcontracting that apply to small business concerns under FAR part 19 applies to this procurement? Does the Small Business Prime individually need to perform greater than 50% of this work? Or will it be acceptable for the Small Business Prime, with similarly situated small business partners combined perform greater than 50% of the work of this contract? | Please refer to FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Deviation 2019-O0003), as incorporated by reference. | ||||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph b, Volume II - Technical/Management Volume, | Please clarify the purpose of the "Architectures, Diagrams, etc." portion of the outline. 2) Phase Two subfactor 2, requires the DoDAF architecture artifacts, and all subfactors will likely have diagrams. Should these artifacts go in their respective subfactors, or do you intend for those to be separate under 3) and referenced by each subfactor? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Volumes | |||||
| Are the architecture diagrams included in the 45-pages for subfactor 2? On page 25, the table at paragraph iv. Organization/Page Limit is shows the page allocation for subfactors 2-4 as 45 pages. However, on page 27, paragraph b) Volume II – Technical/Management Volume, it shows the Technical/Management Factor as item 2 of the Volume while the Architecture, Diagrams, etc. as item 3. Please explain where the Government would like the architecture diagrams and if they are included in the 45-pages. | Architecture, diagrams etc., with the exception of Subfactor 2 (ii), are included in the 45-page. The solicitation has been updated to further clarify. | |||||
| 35 | Solicitation, Paragraph 2 Past Performance, subparagraph c Quality | Will the Government provide examples of the quality measures that will be used to evaluate the Quality of past performance references? Would the Government provide the standards, adjectival rating and descriptions for scoring past performance quality. As written, the information describes what the quality assessment will consist of but not how the Government will score the past performances. | The solicitation has been updated to state, "The quality assessment consists of an in-depth, comprehensive evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or interviews with Government mission partners." The Quality assessment is factored in to the Government's overall confidence assessment. | |||
| 36 | Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Table | Paragraph (2) states Past Performance will be evaluated based on recency, relevancy, and quality. Paragraph (2)(c) states the confidence rating will be based on relevance and confidence. However, the table states the rating is based on "recent and relevant" past performance. Please describe how quality relates to the confidence ratings. | Refer to response in the previous line | |||
| 35 | Solicitation, Paragraph 2 Past Performance, subparagraph c Quality | Would the Government provide their scoring method on how they will assess and weight the relevancy and quality assessments to assign a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating? | The Government does not use a scoring methodology. As stated in the solicitation, "Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor’s past performance efforts." | |||
| 35 | Table Past Performance Relevancy Rating | The table includes "complexities" as a factor, however complexities is not included as an evaluation factor on page 29 paragraph c, only size and scope. Can the Government clarify the past performance factors? | The past performance evaluation will consider recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor's past performance efforts. Refer to the solicitation for adjectival ratings. | |||
| Attachment 1, PWS (p.5) | What state of development are the architectures for each organization? Have the architectures been synchronized? What issues have precluded advancing the architectures? | The state of development of the architecture is a constant cycle of updates based on the battle rhythm set forth by each command. The architectures within each command are synchronized to allow for Portfolio Managers to view and understand the complexity of systems relationships and interdependency between projects and capabilities using the Consolidated Architecture Tool Suite (CATS) data. Lack of strict adherence to the Government -specified style guides, approved taxonomies, architecture implementation guides and element lists is only thing that precludes further advancement of the architectures at the enterprise-level. | ||||
| Attachment 1, PWS Paragraph 6.1. Consolidated Architecture Tool Suite (CATS) Development and Sustainment (p. 10) | Reference: : "The contractor shall maintain the CATS tools current 3-Tier architecture consisting of a database tier, a presentation tier and an application tier, and the development of system interfaces to support a Government designated Cloud environment." | |||||
| Which commercial cloud providers should Offerors anticipate supporting? AWS and related AWS technologies are listed in Appendix D but no other cloud providers. Is AWS the only commercial cloud platform currently in use by USTRANSCOM? | Currently, USTRANSCOM is using AWS; however, USTRANSCOM anticipates using DoD JEDI when available. | |||||
| Attachment 1, PWS, Paragraph 6.2 CATS Development and Testing (p. 11) | Reference: The contractor shall provide a development environment allowing for the development and testing at the contractor’s site, and a Continuity of Operations (COOP) site, as determined by the COR, until CATS is determined System of Record in the Cloud and CATS development can be accomplished in the Cloud. | |||||
| Are contractors allowed to use a commercial cloud provider for the development, testing, and COOP site or are they required to provide these services in a private datacenter? | Development and testing site will be performed in a closed development environment, at the contractor facility, using government equipment, not a commercial cloud provider, until CATS is determined to be System of Record in the USTC Gov Cloud at which point the development, test and COOP sites will all be provided in the USTC Gov Cloud. | |||||
| Attachment 1 PWS, Paragraph 6.22 Web-based Information/Applications (p. 15) | Reference: "The contractor shall maintain, modernize, and host the DTEB web homepage." | |||||
| What technologies are currently used to host and manage the DTEB website content? | DTEB is current hosted on the Information Tool Suite (ITS) owned and managed by USTRANSCOM as government software on an Oracle database. | |||||
| Attachment 1, PWS, Paragraph 6.1. (p. 11) | Reference: "The Government will provide an environment that supports application development….The contractor will be responsible for future application development." | |||||
| Can the Government confirm that this requirement applies only to the CATS tools? Is this a broader requirement for the EADE contractor to be responsible for the implementation of a DevOps environment and/or the development of mission-related applications? | Para 6.1 applies specifically to the CATS tool. There may be further application development task listed in section 7, 9 and 10 that pertain to other application development efforts. | |||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Category Descriptions | Enterprise Architect Certified (Level 4- Master) job description is described in Attachment 8- Labor Category descriptions. That LCAT is missing in Attachment 7- EADE Pricing template. Does the government intend for this to be priced at the task order level and not during the IDIQ RFP response? This may not be advantageous for the government. | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | ||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Price Template and Attachment 8 Labor Category Descriptions | Is the “System Architect Certified (Level -Director)” LCAT description intended to match the “Systems Architect- SME” position in the pricing template? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | ||||
| 29 and 35 | (page 29) - c) | |||||
| (page 35) - b) | There appears to be inconsistency between the Note in the second line of page 29 and the evaluation criteria described on page 35. As written on page 35 each past performance appears to have to address all three technical subfactors to be considered relevant - not the aggregate of all past performance references provided. If so this would reduce competition and cause a bias against non-incumbents. To be consistent with the note on page 29, will the government consider allowing the Offerors to address the three subfactors across all their past performance submissions by changing the page 35 requirement to read "To be determined relevant the total past performance effort across all submitted references must demonstrate..."? | The solicitation states, " Each reference does not need to reflect performance in all identified performance areas; however, the Government will give greater consideration to references that reflect past performance in multiple performance areas. An offeror must provide past performance that demonstrates performance in relation to the current procurement. Thus, we are allowing offerors to submit on all three areas. | ||||
| Attachment 1, PWS Paragraph 16.4 (p. 29) | The requirement for TS/SCI-eligibility appears to only be required for the EA performance area (PWS 4.1-4.9). Given the tight inter-relationship between all the performance areas, do data and engineering performance areas also require TS/SCI-eligible personnel? | Not at this time. | ||||
| Attachment 1 PWS, page 11 and Appendix D, page 44 | CATS is listed as an entry in appendix D. Page 11 of the PWS implies that CATS is not yet a system of record in the cloud, yet it appears on the list of tools. What tools are included in the CATS suite? | CATS is government software which has five applications listed in para 6.1: Architecture Builder Tool (ABT), a Primitive Manager (Prim Mgr), an Architecture Viewer (ARV), an Interface and Data Dictionary Repository (IDDR), an Information Resource Catalog (IRC), and a Services Documentation Repository (SDR). | ||||
| Attachment 1 PWS, Appendix D (p. 44 - 45) | DataFlux is not addressed by appendix D and was previously used by USTRANSCOM, please confirm appendix D is a comprehensive list of tools required for the EADE contractor. | Data Flux is being used by USTRANSCOM and will be added to the appendix along with Cognos and Tableau. | ||||
| 28 | Solicitation, Paragraph D Subfactor 4, Enterprise Engineering Support | The 5th area under Subfactor 4, Enterprise Engineering Support, states, Developing prototypes, modeling complex processes, and running simulations. Describe a proposed development methodology and how the team is structured. (Reference PWS Section 7.11). There appears to be no references to prototypes, modeling or simulations addressed in PWS 7.11. Would the Government confirm that this is the correct PWS reference for this evaluation area? | The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 25 - 26 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, subparagraph a) Proposal Organization | Volume I-Executive Summary Table 1 states a 3 page limit with 2 individual components required in this volume. Paragraph v.a) does not outline how the Government wants the Offeror to respond to a Cover Page. Please clarify the instructions and the applicable page limit constraint. | The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 25 - 30 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, subparagraph a) Proposal Organization | Could the Government please explain its use of "N/A" in Table 1 for Volume V Additional Requirements [ Solicitation/Contract Information and DD 254] when page 30 identifies specific instructions to complete and include these documents? | Offerors are required to complete blocks and provisions of the solicitation; as such, a page count is not required. | |||
| 27 and 32 | Solicitation, Paragraph b Volume II - Technical/Management Volume and paragraph . Evaluation Factors and Subfactors | Could the Government provide detailed instructions on 3) Architecture and Diagrams required for Volume II. It is not listed as part of submission in Table 1. This does not appear as part of the evaluation factors/ subfactors. Are these elements outside of page count? What is the Government expect Offerors to provide? Is this section a result of information provided in Attachment 10? | The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 28 | Solicitation, Paragraph c, Volume V - Past Performance | This section is titled "V -Past Performance". Table I has a different volume number. Could the Government please reconcile and update its instructions? | The Past Performance Volume should be Volume III vice V. The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph d, Volume VI - Cost/Price | This section is titled "VI -Cost/Price". Table I has a different volume number. Could the Government please reconcile and update its instructions? | The Cost/Price Volume should be Volume IV vice VI. The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 30 | Solicitation, Paragraph e, Volume VII Contract Documentation | This section is titled "VII - Contract Documentation". Table I has a different volume title and number for many of these elements. Could the Government please reconcile and update its instructions? | The Contract Documentation Volume should be Volume V vice VII. The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 31 | Solicitation, Paragraph h, DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification | In the DD Form 254 provided block 6 contains restrictive language that prevents an Offeror from completing Block 6 a, b or c. [ COMPLETION OF THIS BLOCK IS NOT APPROVED FOR SOLICITATIONS]. Could the Government clarify for Offerors its intent and requirement to complete this section and submit as part of Volume V? | The DD254 has been updated. | |||
| 5 | Attachment 1 PWS, Paragraph 3.2 | Will the project plan at the task order level include management approach, operating procedures, staffing approach and WBS or just the Staffing Plans with resource assignments? | If a Program Management Plan is required, it will be identified in the task order PWS. | |||
| 5 | Attachment 1 PWS, Paragraph 4.1 | Will the Government provide the existing architecture data/views prior to award to ensure all offerors have access to the same information? | No, the architecture data/views will be provided after award. | |||
| 7 | Attachment 1 PWS, Paragraph 4.9 | Will the training session provided be required to support distance education (i.e. Hosted) or will it be delivered on-site and only once? Additionally, will testing or certification be part of the training? | Training will be a periodic event to ensure the users of the architectures understand how to view and use the data. The training site will be at the contractor's facility off-site. There may be testing to determine a level of understanding but no formal certification process. | |||
| 10 | Attachment 1 PWS, Paragraph 6 | Will the Government provide existing CATS tools and current 3-Tier architecture to ensure all offerors have access to the same information? | No | |||
| 26 | Solicitation, Paragraph d Table of Contents | Does the table of contents count against the 'page count'? | No | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph c Volume V - Past Performance, bullet c | Are subcontractor required to submit past performance? | No | |||
| Attachment 10 - Use Case | How much time elapsed between Mrs. Charles informing her husband to begin planning to the realtor providing info on the (3) land plots? | 14 days; Attachment 10 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 10 - Use Case | How much time upon presentation of the (3) land plots did the Charles' family take to select the nine-acres plot? | 7 days; Attachment 10 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 10 - Use Case | Did the architect plans and drawings as well as the loan discussions occur simultaneously? | Yes; Attachment 10 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 10 - Use Case | What was the timeline regarding selling of the existing Charles' family residence? | Existing Charles' family residence sold April 2018; Attachment 10 has been updated. | ||||
| 27 | Solicitation, Addendum to 52.212-1, Volume II Technical Management Volume/ Subfactor 2, Architecture | Please confirm the documentation and architecture models for Volume II Technical Management Volume/ Subfactor 2, Architecture (Attachment 10) are not included in the volume page count and can be attached as an Appendix to the volume. | The 45 page limit remains the same; however, the solicitation has been updated to exclude Subfactor 2 (ii) from the page limits due to sizing. | |||
| 34 | Solicitation, Addendum to 52.212-2 | Not all subtasks within Performance Areas are listed as part of the Evaluation Factors for Award. Please confirm that the Government’s expectation is that offerors’ proposals only respond to Performance Areas task and subtasks specifically mentioned in Addendum to 52.212-2 “Evaluation Factors for Award”. This includes only PWS Sections (4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 7.3, 7.4, 7.11, 7.12) | Correct | |||
| 36 | Solicitation, Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph c) Quality | The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating table in Evaluation Factors for Award vi.(2)c) mentions recency and relevancy but does not mention quality. Please clarify how quality is to be evaluated as part of the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. | As stated in the solicitation, "The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or interviews with Government mission partners." | |||
| Attachment 1 PWS, Enterprise Engineering Sections 5.14 - 5.20 (p. 9 - 10) | The RFP does not include instruction to address Performance Area 5 Subsections 5.14 to 5.20. Please confirm that the offeror is not required to address these sections. | Correct | ||||
| Attachment 1, PWS (p. 10 - 17) | The RFP does not include instruction to address Performance Areas 4, 6, 7, and 8. Please confirm that the offeror is not required to address these sections. | Correct | ||||
| 18 | Solicitation Clause 52.232-7, Section (d) | The RFP states, "It is estimated that the total cost to the Government for the performance of this contract shall not exceed the ceiling price set forth in the Schedule, and the Contractor agrees to use its best efforts to perform the work specified in the Schedule and all obligations under this contract within such ceiling price." | ||||
| Q: Has the Government set a ceiling price for this contract? | Yes | |||||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph a Proposal Organization | The table identifies a cover page only for the Executive Summary Volume. | ||||
| Q: We assume that offerors may provide a cover page, outside of the page limit, to identify each volume. Is this assumption correct? | Correct | |||||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph a Proposal Organization | Q: We assume the list of contents for the Executive Summary Volume in the table should include "Executive Summary" with a 3-page limit excluding Table of Contents. Is this assumption correct? | The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph a Proposal Organization | Providing the architectural models required for Subfactor 2 will require considerable space given the size of these models based on the Use Case provided by the Government. In addition, offerors must create multiple OV-6c Event-Trace Description models and accompanying descriptions. | ||||
| Q: To ensure offerors have adequate space to provide the necessary level of detail, will the Government increase the page limit for Subfactors 2-4 to 60 pages? | The 45 page limit remains the same; however, the solicitation has been updated to exclude Subfactor 2 (ii) from the page limits due to sizing. | |||||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph a Proposal Organization | The Use Case omits some processes that would be essential for building a house. | ||||
| Q: Does the Government want us to architect the use case EXACTLY as written or should we use some amount of inference and put in activities that we think should be there? | Exactly as written. | |||||
| 25 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph a Proposal Organization | Even assuming we use an 11" x 17" foldout page, it will not be possible to provide the OV-5a diagram in a size that meets the 10 point minimum font requirement unless we break down the sub-processes into separate diagrams. | ||||
| Q: Is it permissible to break down the OV-5a diagram into multiple sub-processes? | The offeror may break down the OV-5a diagram as they see fit, however the overall page count may not be exceeded. | |||||
| 26 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph c Page Size and Format | Q: The second paragraph of this section mentions "hard copy proposals." However, we assume there is no hard copy submission required. Is this assumption correct? | The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 25-26 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph a Proposal Organization and Subparagraph e Glossary | Paragraph e) states that a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms should be included in "Each volume, except the Cost/Price Volume IV." However, the table on page 25 shows the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms only for Volumes II and V. | ||||
| Q: We assume we should add a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms at the end of Volumes I and III also. Is this assumption correct? | The solicitation has been updated. | |||||
| 26 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, Subparagraph c Page Size and Format | Q: Do 11x17 pages count as two pages? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, subparagraph a Volume I Executive Summary | Q: We assume that the "Table of Contents of the entire proposal to include Lists of Tables, Figures, and/or Drawings" does not count against the 3-page limit for the Executive Summary Volume. Is this assumption correct? | The Executive Summary page limit has been updated to 5. The Table of Contents of the entire proposal should be included in the page limit for the Executive Summary. | |||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, subparagraph a Volume I Executive Summary | Q: Does the Government require offerors to provide a separate Table of Contents for the Executive Summary Volume in addition to the master Table of Contents required in Item 8? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, subparagraph a Volume I Executive Summary | Q: Does the Government require offerors to include "Lists of Tables, Figures, and/or Drawings" in the Tables of Contents for other Volumes? | If Tables, Figures, and/or Drawings are included as part of the volume, they need to be identified in the Table of Contents | |||
| 25, 27 | Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors iv.a) and v.b) | In the table on page 25, Volume II is called "Technical/Management Approach". On page 27, it is called "Technical/Management Volume". | ||||
| Q: Which title should offerors use for this Volume? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 27-28 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph b Technical/Management Volume | The instructions for organizing the Technical/Management volume include "3) Architecture, Diagrams, etc." However, the instructions on the remainder of pages 27 and 28 do not mention a separate section for this information. | ||||
| Q: We assume that these diagrams should be provided in the appropriate place in our responses to Subfactors 2 through 4 rather than in a separate section. Is this assumption correct? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 27-28 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph b Technical/Management Volume | The PWS sections referenced on these pages are only a part of the entire PWS. | ||||
| Q: We assume that offerors are not required to address PWS sections other than those mentioned on these pages, which include PWS 5.1 through 5.13, 7.3, 7.4, 7.11, and 7.12. Is this assumption correct? | Correct. | |||||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph b Technical/Management Volume | Q: As a demonstration of our CMMI Level 3 certification, we would like to provide a copy of our appraisal certificate. However, this certificate does not comply with the font style requirements in the RFP (e.g., Times New Roman or Arial) 10 point minimum. Can we provide the 1-page image of this document and still be in compliance with the RFP instructions? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||
| 27 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph b Technical/Management Volume | There appears to be a typo in the listing of the required architecture models. | ||||
| Q: We assume that item i should omit "OV-6c" and that this should be moved to the beginning of item ii. Is this assumption correct? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 28 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph c Past Performance | Q: We assume Past Performance should be Volume III, not Volume V as shown here. Is this assumption correct? | Correct. | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph c Past Performance | Q: Item a) on page 29 states, "If an offeror submits past performance information for an ID/IQ contract, then the offeror must identify a specific task order under that specific ID/IQ contract." | ||||
| Q: Does this apply to single-award ID/IQ contracts where contractors may receive a series of (in some cases) dozens of task orders? | Yes, identification of a specific task order is required. This applies to a single-award ID/IQ contract. | |||||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph c Past Performance | Q: If item a) on page 29 does apply to single-award ID/IQ contracts, can offerors cite multiple related task orders in a single past performance citation in order to show the scope of experience desired by USTRANSCOM? | No | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph c Past Performance | Q: We assume that the required Subcontractor Letters of Consent should be provided as part of this Volume and do not count against the page limit. Is this assumption correct? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph d Cost/Price | Q: We assume that Cost/Price should be Volume IV, not Volume VI as shown here. Is this assumption correct? | The Cost/Price Volume should be Volume IV vice VI. The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph d Cost/Price | The instructions for the Cost/Price Volume ask for "required supporting documentation" and information about the offeror's accounting system. | ||||
| Q: We assume offerors should submit two documents for the Cost/Price Volume: the Excel version of the EADE Pricing Template and a PDF file that contains the supporting documentation and accounting system information. Is this assumption correct? | Correct | |||||
| 29 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph d Cost/Price | Q: Can the Government clarify the specific "required supporting documentation" that is required to be submitted in this Volume? | Refer to paragraph d) Volume IV Cost/Price for additional information the offeror is required to provide. | |||
| 30 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph e Contract Documentation | Q: We assume that Contract Documentation should be Volume V, not Volume VII as shown here. Is this assumption correct? | The Contract Documentation should be Volume V vice VII. The solicitation has been updated. | |||
| 25, 30 | Solicitation Instructions to Offerors iv.a) and v.e) | The contents of this Volume differ between page 25 and page 30. Page 30 omits "Solicitation/Contract Information". | ||||
| Q: We assume that the contents shown on page 25 are correct. Is this assumption correct? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 30 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph e Contract Documentation | On page 25, this Volume is called "Additional Requirements". On page 30, it is called "Contract Documentation". | ||||
| Q: What name should offerors use for this Volume? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 31 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph g Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan | The last sentence of this section states, "If the offeror believes there is no OCI, a statement as such will be included in the cover letter." However, there is no other reference in the RFP to a cover letter. | ||||
| Q: Is a cover letter required, and, if so, where should offerors provide it? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 31 | Solicitation, Paragraph v Proposal Volumes, Subparagraph g Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan | The last sentence of this section states, "If the offeror believes there is no OCI, a statement as such will be included in the cover letter." | ||||
| Q: If an offeror believes there is no OCI, is the OCI/Mitigation Plan required? | An OCI/Mitigation Plan is not required if the offeror believes there is no OCI; however, an OCI/Mitigation Plan may be required if the Contracting Officer identifies a possible conflict of interest. | |||||
| 25, 30-31 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits, iv.a), v.e), and v.g) | The reference to the OCI Plan on page 25 says, "OCI Mitigation Plan". The reference in v.e) says, "Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCCI) Mitigation Plan". The reference in v.g) says "Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan". | ||||
| Q: What is the correct title for the plan offerors should submit? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 25, 30-31 | Solicitation, Paragraph iv Organization/ Page Limits iv.a), v.e), and v.g) | The reference to the OCI Plan on page 25 says, "OCI Mitigation Plan". The reference in v.e) says, "Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCCI) Mitigation Plan". The reference in v.g) says "Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan". | ||||
| Q: If the plan must include Consultant OCI as indicated on page 25, can the Government provide specific details about this requirement? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 32 | Solicitation, Paragraph iii Number of Contracts to be Awarded | This section states, "The Government intends to award a firm-fixed price, single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract." However, Item 0002 on page 3 is shown as Labor Hour. | ||||
| Q: Is there a Labor Hour component to the contract? | Additional guidance has been provided in the amended solicitation. | |||||
| 53-54 | Clause 252.339-7009 | Are offerors required to fill in this clause as part of their responses? | Yes | |||
| Attachment 1, PWS 5.7 (p. 8) | Does the Government have a document repository the contractor is required to use? If so, what is it? | Yes, the information will be provided upon award. | ||||
| Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Sheet | The Government has provided this document in PDF format; however, offerors will need to prepare their Past Performance volume in Microsoft Word before converting to Adobe PDF for submission. Offerors would need up to five copies of this table, depending on the number of past performances being submitted. | |||||
| Q: May offerors convert this Attachment to a Microsoft Word table, including modifying the font to Times New Roman or Arial 10 and omitting the Attachment information (the centered information at the top) and the footnote? | No | |||||
| Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Sheet | Q: We assume the reference to "Performance Area 1" should be corrected to say "Performance Area 2". Is this assumption correct? | Attachment 4 has been updated. | ||||
| Attachment 5 - Past Performance Reference Sheet | We assume that we can reproduce the information in this document, beginning with "Offeror's Name" as part of the Word document we use to prepare our past performance response before converting to Adobe PDF for submission. Is this assumption correct? | Correct | ||||
| Attachment 5 - Past Performance Reference Sheet | This attachment provides email addresses in the instruction portion. | |||||
| Q: We assume that we are NOT required to submit this Attachment other than as part of our Past Performance Volume. Is this assumption correct? | Correct | |||||
| Attachment 7 - EADE Pricing Template | Cell B3 on the "Labor Rate Table" tab states, "All items in columns D-M shall be priced". | |||||
| Q: We assume this should be Columns D-O (to include the 6-month extension). Is this assumption correct? | Attachment 7 has been updated. | |||||
| 35 | Solicitation, Paragraph 2 Past Performance, subparagraph b Relevancy | Paragraph b) states that "While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DoD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than work performed for organizations other than DoD" | ||||
| Q: If a past performance is presented from an “other than DoD” Federal agency such as the US Coast Guard (USCG) that follows DoD directives, principles, and policies; follows DoDAF architectural compliance and guidance; uses DISA STIG to maintain systems security posture; and whose technical infrastructure resides on a .mil network, would a past performance from such an entity be considered equivalent to a DoD past performance and eligible for receiving “greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than work performed for organizations other than DoD”? | The Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DoD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than work performed for organizations other than DoD. | |||||
| 31 | Solicitation, h DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification | Since this is an IDIQ and no task orders/work will be awarded with the IDIQ, please allow Joint Ventures (JVs), in which both business entities in the JV have Top Secret (TS) facility clearances (FCLs), to submit proof of TS FCL for the primary (lead) company in the JV at the time of proposal submission. Obtaining an FCL from DSS, despite both parties already having TS FCLs, can take up to three months. Recommend updating RFP Page 31, section h), to read, "Offerors (Prime Contractors and lead companies in a Joint Venture) shall have and maintain a valid Facility Security Clearance (FCL) at the Top Secret level at the time of proposal submission. Joint Ventures must have and provide proof of a valid TS FCL at time of IDIQ award." | Please refer to the solicitation regarding FCL requirements at time of proposal submission. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .