Attachment 2 - QA.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 50 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Managed Information Technology Services (MITS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC71122RD002
About this file
This document provides details for a solicitation seeking Managed Information Technology Services. Key information includes:
-
The solicitation seeks proposals for an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract to provide Managed Information Technology Services in support of the United States Transportation Command.
-
A pre-proposal conference will be held on April 21st and 22nd, 2022 to allow potential contractors to obtain a better understanding of requirements and have questions addressed. Site tours will also be provided. An amendment with questions and answers from the conference will be issued.
-
Proposals are due by May 10th, 2022. The number of contracts to be awarded was not specified. Task orders will be issued for specific requirements as they are identified.
-
The scope of work involves enterprise IT services including service management, infrastructure support, enterprise computing and storage, cybersecurity operations, and audio/visual services. The performance work statement provides additional details.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 32
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Solicitation Q&A
MANAGED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE (MITS) ENTERPRISE SUPPORT
HTC71122RD002
| RFP - Question and Answer Matrix | |||||
| Question Number | Reference Solicitation Document/Attachment | Page # | Reference Section/Paragraph | Offeror Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | SF-1449 | 1 | SF-1449, ITO iv | The solicitation's SF-1449 (box 8) reflects a due date of 03 May 2022 at midnight (12:00a), while the Instruction to Offerors indicates proposals are due that day at 9:00a Central Time. Would the Government please confirm that proposals are in fact due at 9:00a CT, and that SAFE drop-off requests for proposal submissions will be honored until at least that time? (Note that the error on the SF-1449 still appears to be present in the solicitation version released with Amendment 1 on 3/25/2022.) | Amendment 0001, page 1, corrected the response time. However, based on other inquiries the date/time has been revised to 10 May 2022, 0900a CT. |
| 2 | Attachment 3, Past Performance Reference | 1 | Attachment 9 | Please confirm that the offeror may remove the footnote in order to save space. | The footnote may be removed, but the CUI heading must remain on the document. |
| 3 | Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire | 1 | "NOTE" | The Government instructs Offeror to "Complete the following questionnaire and return via email no later than 0900(CT) 25 April 2022". Given that Offeror must rely on personnel outside of Offeror's organization to complete the PPQ, and that the response window includes the Easter holiday, likely vacation time, will the Government consider extending the PPQ submittal deadline and the proposal submittal deadline? | Attachment 5 has been revised to reflect a date of 02 May 2022. |
| 4 | Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire | 1 | "NOTE" | Given the close proximity of the due date of the PPQs to the Pre-Proposal Conference and response to Q&A, offeror's will not be able to factor this information into our selection of Past Performance References and subsequent PPQs. Under this schedule, offerors would need to submit the PPQs to our contract POCs prior to the Pre-Proposal Conference, as they are due the next business day. Would the government consider extending the PPQ submittal deadline? | Refer to Question 3's response. |
| 5 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 1 | iv. Organization/Page Limited; Proposal Submission | This section states that "All proposals are due at 0900 (CT) on 03 May 2022" |
| The Pre-Proposal conference dates are 6/7 business days prior to the proposal due date, at which time bidders will receive responses to Questions and Answers. This schedule provides limited time for offerors to review the Q&A and factor them into our proposal responses. Would the government therefore consider extending the proposal due date? | The Government does not intend to wait until after the pre-proposal conference to post the inquiries received on or before 07 April. The Government has considered your request and extended the date/time to 10 May 2022, 0900 CT. | ||||
| 6 | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Sheet | 1 | First paragraph | This paragraph states "Please include the Completed Past Performance Information Sheet in the Past Performance Volume of your proposal…" |
The Past Performance Information Sheet is not mentioned in the page limitations for Volume III: Past Performance.
| Would the government please clarify if the Past Performance Information Sheet is excluded from the 10 page limit? | The solicitation is amended to clarify its exclusion. | ||||
| 7 | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Sheet | 1 | First paragraph | This paragraph states:" Offerors shall complete the Past Performance Reference Sheet to reflect those individuals requested to complete the questionnaire." |
| Would the government please clarify if the intent of this sentence is that the same contact information provided for each of the four references in the Past Performance Information Sheet be the same information provided in the Attachment 3 - Past Performance Refrnce Sheet; section B. Past Performance Reference Point of Contact (POC)? | Attachment 4 has been revised to reflect the completion of the "Past Performance Information Sheet" | |||||
| 8 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 7 | (iii) Phase Two, Subfactor 3 | Regarding the scenario, can the government provide a baseline from which to respond. For Instance - is there an existing RPA tool that is already in use in the service environment? Is there any sort of existing RPA practice or processes that have already been automated with RPA? Or, is this scenario geared at measuring our understanding of how to set up a "from Scratch" new tool and service? Does the government want us to discuss technical concerns as it relates to RPA specifically? Or, should offerors focus on the ITIL delivery elements as it relates to providing new technology. | The Subfactor has been revised to identify assumptions when considering the scenario. | |
| 9 | Solicitation | 8 | v. Proposal Volumes, | |||
| c. Past Performance | In order to reduce strain on Government resources, will the Government accept CPARs in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires? | No; however, the Government will review CPARS information as part of our quality assessment with respect to assigning a performance Confidence Assessment rating. (from a new RPA) | ||||
| 10 | Attachment 1, PWS | 9 | Section 4.5, Enterprise Operations, Event Monitoring and Management, Performance Monitoring, and Analysis | Are there established thresholds and SLAs for monitoring and responding to warning and alert messages? | Established thresholds and SLAs for monitoring and responding to warning and alert messages will be provided at the task order level. | |
| 11 | Attachment 1, PWS | 9 | Section 4.5 & 6.2 | How may Enterprise applications and servers are on the network? Are they all on-premise or are some in the cloud? If in the cloud, do the majority reside in AWS or Azure? | The number of applications and servers will be provided in the task order PWS. And we have a hybrid of on-premise and in the cloud. We currently utilize both AWS and Azure. | |
| 12 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 9 | Volume 5 Small Business Proposal - matrix, vs ii. small business participation plan. | Can the government confirm that the Matrix Targets in subsection (i) is the small business target of 27.7% which represents the total of the referenced socio-demographic categories along with an extra (.8) for just, "small businesses." Can the government clarify the difference of these targets at 27.7% as it relates to the 35% target located in sub-section ii? | The Small Business goal of 27.7% is inclusive of all socio-economic categories and represents a total. The matrix provided is only suggested goals for subcontracting. The commitment of 35% (minimum) utilization is inclusive of all small business socio-economic categories. | |
| 13 | Attachment 1, PWS | 12 | Section 5.9, Audio and Digital Media Services | Would the Government please provide a list of devices that are in use across USTRANSCOM for audio, video, and digital media? | A list of devices will be provided at the task order level. The majority of the AV rooms are programmed with Crestron equipment. | |
| 14 | Final PWS | 13 | Paragraph 6.2 | In the Section 6.2. Mission and Business Application, Tools, Portals, and Web Services, 1st sentence of third paragraph states: "The contractor shall use the Government provided software and tools to perform Mission and Business Application, Tools, Portals, and Web services to the maximum extent possible." | ||
| Will the Government provide a list of the software and tools in uses for Mission and Business Application, Tools, Portals, and Web services? | The contractor shall use Government provided software and tools to perform the services requested rather than procuring or bringing in "home-grown" software and tools. | |||||
| 15 | PWS | 16 | 13.1.1.1 | Can the government provide the referenced "Appendix: Contractor Cyberspace | ||
| Workforce Management Training and Certification?" In order to accurately price each labor category, offerors need to know what certifications are required for each position. | The reference to the appendix has been removed. The requirement to follow DOD 8570.01M remains. The PWS has been updated to reflect the change. | |||||
| 16 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 18 | Page Size and Format | The RFP states: "The font type/text size shall be no smaller than 11-point Arial or Times New Roman (no other font variations are acceptable) font for all text. For all tables, charts, graphs and figures included in the proposal, the text shall be no smaller than 11-point Arial or Times New Roman font." |
Will the Government confirm Arial includes the Arial 'family' of fonts, such as Arial Narrow?
| Will the Government allow using a 9-point font for charts, graphs, tables, and figures? | The Arial family of fonts is acceptable and the font size identified in the solicitation for charts, graphs, tables, and figures remains unchanged. | |||||
| 17 | RFP | 18 | ITO iv | Would the Government please consider allowing fonts of reduced size (e.g., 9-point) in tables and graphics, assuming that they remain legible and are not used to circumvent page limitations? | No, use the font and sizes identified in the solicitation. | |
| 18 | RFP | 18 | ITO iv | Would the Government please consider allowing fonts of reduced size (e.g., 9-point) in tables and graphics, assuming that they remain legible and are not used to circumvent page limitations? | No, use the font and sizes identified in the solicitation. | |
| 19 | General | 18 | ITO iv | The current dates for the pre-proposal conference and associated distribution of question and answer responses is only 10 full calendar days prior to the due date of the proposal, and well beyond the time at which offerors will be formulating their strategies for meeting the Government's requirements. Would the Government please consider extending the due date of the proposal to allow a minimum of two full weeks after the pre-proposal conference and release of an amendment containing formal Q&A responses to allow offerors to better respond to their updated understanding of the acquisition? | Refer to Question 5's response. | |
| 20 | Solicitation | 18 | iv. Proposal Submission | The instructions direct offerors to submit via DoD SAFE, however, the DoD SAFE site states, “DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions.” Will the Government please confirm whether offerors should submit via DoD SAFE, PIEE, or an alternative? | The solicitation is clear in that "Offerors shall submit proposals via DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) https://safe.apps.mil/." | |
| 21 | Solicitation | 19 | v. Proposal Volumes, |
(a) Volume I - Business Proposal,
| (1) Executive Summary | Section (v)(a)(1) of the Solicitation requires submission of a DUNS code. Please confirm that Offerors are to provide their Unique Entity ID (UEID) and not their DUNS code. | Correct, the solicitation is amended to revise to reflect UEID | ||||
| 22 | RFP | 20 | ITO v(b) | The instructions for the Technical/Management Proposal state, "This volume shall address offeror’s Technical Management approach and will be evaluated on the offeror’s response to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and the subfactors identified below." Would the Government please clarify whether offerors are to address all technical sections of the PWS, or just those called out in Subfactors 1-3? | In accordance with Section v(b), provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology/approach to be used for accomplishing/satisfying Subfactors 1-3 as outlined in ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 | |
| 23 | RFP | 20 | ITO v(b)(i); PWS 2.6 | The ISO/IEC 20000-1 standard is reflective of ITILv3, which is currently in the sundown phase of its lifecycle, limiting the usefulness of this certification. Would the Government consider removing the ISO/IEC 20000-1 requirement? | The requirement for ISO IEC 20000-1 certification remains unchanged. | |
| 24 | RFP | 20 | ITO v(b)(i); PWS 2.6 | The instructions to offerors in v(b)(i) requires recent ISO/IEC 20000-1 certification at the time of proposal submission, which may limit fair competition among otherwise qualified offerors. Furthermore, PWS paragraph states, “The contractor is required to obtain and maintain a successful ISO IEC 20000-1 certification throughout the contract lifecycle.” Would the Government consider eliminating the requirement for recent ISO/IEC 20000-1 at the time of proposal submission, and allow this requirement to be met after contract award? | No, this must be met at the time of proposal submission. | |
| 25 | RFP | 20 | ITO v(b)(ii) | The instructions to offerors in v(b)(ii) call for offerors to address “Infrastructure Development/Sustainment,’ which is Section 5 in the PWS. However, the instructions direct offerors to reference PWS 5.6, which is “Enterprise Computing, Storage, and Cloud Services.” Would the Government please confirm that the requirement for this section is limited to the topics of PWS 5.6, and not all of PWS 5? | Revising v(b)(ii) to reflect “Enterprise Computing, Storage, and Cloud Services.” | |
| 26 | RFP | 20 | ITO v(b)(iii) | The Phase II Subfactor 3 Enterprise Activities and Services scenario calls for offerors to describe a technical approach in responding to an end user request for implementing Robotics Process Automation of multiple business processes. However, business processes are only addressed once in passing in Section 6.2 of the PWS, and automation is only mentioned in association with the Cyber Security requirements of PWS Section 13. Would the Government please clarify their expectations with respect to this proposal requirement, as the topic of the scenario does not appear to clearly align with the requirements of the PWS. | The solicitation provides a reference for this Subfactor as "PWS Section 4" which is Performance Area 2 - Enterprise Activities and Services | |
| 27 | HTC71122RD002 | 20 | Instructions to Offerors, v.(a).(3) | Would the Government please confirm that unless an offeror has submitted a bid as a prime on COF or SISO or has any other OCI in accordance with FAR 9.5, the offeror is not required to submit an OCI mitigation plan in order to bid as a prime on MITS. | Correct. If the offeror believes there is no OCI, a statement as such shall be included in the offeror’s submission. | |
| 28 | HTC71122RD002 | 20 | Instruction to offerors, v. Proposal Volumes, 3 Organizational Conflict of Interest | Should it be applicable per the Terms and Conditions of the Solicitation and Section (3) Organizational Conflict of Interest to provide an OCI Mitigation plan, would the Government allow for submission of this document for review and concurrence by the Contracting Officer prior to the proposal due date of May 3? | The Government will allow for submission prior to the proposal due date; however, the Contracting Officer cannot agree to reviewing / resolving any potential OCI prior to the proposal due date. | |
| 29 | HTC71122RD002 | 20 | Instruction to offerors, v. Proposal Volumes, 3 Organizational Conflict of Interest | Is a Prime (Offeror) submitting a response to the MITS RFQ required to submit an OCI mitigation plan, if the Offeror DID NOT submit a response to the Cyberspace Operations Forces and Support (COF) RFQ (HTC71122QD003) or on the Senior Information Security Officer (SISO) RFQ (HTC71122QD001), but one or more of their teammates/partners for their MITS response did submit a response to the COF or SISO RFQs? | Yes, per the solicitation "The OCI mitigation plan shall specifically address their and their subcontractor’s proposed involvement and participation with respect to the MITS, SISO and COF requirements." | |
| 30 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 20 | Instructions to Offerors (ITO) v.(a)(2) Solicitation/Contract Form | The solicitation requires offerors to complete the OCT 2020 version of FAR 52.204-4 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. There is a NOV 2021 version of this clause; should Offerors use the NOV 2021 edition? | The solicitation is amended to reflect the updated version of 52.204-24. | |
| 31 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 20 | ITO v.(a)(2) Solicitation/Contract Form | The solicitation requires offers to complete both FAR 52.204-24 and FAR 52.204-26. If an offeror represents that it "does not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services as a part of its offered products or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract, or other contractual instrument" in paragraph (c)(1) in the provision at 52.204-26, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services--Representation," then the instructions for FAR 52.204-24 instruct Offerors to not complete (d)(1) of that provision. Please confirm that Offerors do not have to complete FAR 52.204-24 if they represented they do not provide covered telecommunications or services as part of its offered products or services. | The solicitation is amended to clarify. | |
| 32 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 20 | ITO v.(a)(2) Solicitation/Contract Form | If an Offeror's updated representations and certifications are in SAM.gov at the time of proposal submission and include the fill-ins, representations, certifications, acknowledgements, and statements reflected in this solicitation, does an Offeror need to separately submit those responses in Volume I? | No, the solicitation is amended to clarify. | |
| 33 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 21 | Instructions to Offerors; v.(c) Volume III - Past Performance | The Past Performance Instructions state, "Utilizing the Past Performance Information Sheet, offerors should address the performance areas identified above." Will the Government clarify if this should instead be the Past Performance Reference Sheet (Attachment 3), since that provides an area to address the Performance Areas, where as Attachment 4 is the Past Performance Information Sheet, which details the POCs that received the Past Performance Questionnaires? | Refer to Question 7 's response. | |
| 34 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 21 | Instructions to Offerors; Volume II - Technical/Management Proposal. Phase One. | Please confirm that Phase 1, Subfactor 1 is not included against a 40-page limit in Volume II. | Correct, the solicitation is amended to clarify. | |
| 35 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 21 | Instructions to Offerors. v.(c). Volume III - Past Performance. | The Past Performance c.i, criteria requires the offeror to cite “providing Infrastructure-as-a-Service in a GovCloud approved environment” experience. There is ambiguity surrounding the term "Providing" and we believe it is in the government’s best interest to evaluate past performance as described in the PWS 5.6 task which does not emphasize "providing IaaS..." but instead support such as "full engineering, the design, integration, installation operations, and maintenance activities of all classified [IL 6] and unclassified [IL 4, IL 5], compute, storage, cloud, physical and virtual infrastructure components." Please confirm that the Government intends offerors to cite references as they relate to the activities described in PWS 5.6. | The Government will evaluate the reference as related to the work identified in the PWS. | |
| 36 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 21 | Paragraph v.(c). Volume III - Past Performance | The section states that "The offeror shall submit no more than four (4) past performance references for services similar in scope (as described in the PWS) within five years of the proposal submission date. The past performance reference must demonstrate three consecutive years of past performance." Taken together, the requirement for past performance within the last five years and three consecutive years of performance within those five years will significantly decrease competition. For example, this will prevent a company from using a past performance for a contract won 21 months ago while the company they beat in the recompete would be able to use their past performance on the same contract. There is value in a minimum of one year of past performance since it will provide the Government an opportunity to see at least one CPARS rating. Will the Government consider removing the requirement for three consecutive years of past performance or reducing it to one year? | After review of the requirement, the Government agrees to reduce the number of consecutive years from three to two years. | |
| 37 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 21 | Paragraph v.(c). Volume III - Past Performance | Please confirm for newly awarded follow-on contracts that do not meet the three consecutive year requirement on their own, the Government would consider the predecessor and current contract, when combined, would meet the three consecutive year performance requirement. | No, each reference must meet the criteria identified in the solicitation. | |
| 38 | RFP | 21 | ITO v(c)(i) | The Past Performance section of the ITO calls for offerors to demonstrate, "Providing Infrastructure-as-a-Service in a GovCloud approved environment at the IL 4 and 5 level. Demonstrated past performance at the IL 6 level will be given greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating." However, the solicitation's PWS makes no mention of GovCloud, nor performance at Impact Level 4 through 6. Would the Government consider removing this requirement for demonstrated performance as it does not appear to align to the corresponding requirements of the PWS. | This requirement will not be removed. | |
| 39 | RFP | 21 | ITO v(c)(i); Attach 3 | Footnote 1 of Attachment 3 Past Performance Rerence Sheet states, "Offeror shall identify the approximate dollar value of the work performed that is applicable to the contractor’s role as either a prime or sub-contractor specifically for this performance area. Offeror should not include the total dollar value of the contract unless they performed 100% of the effort and it was completely in support of this performance area." Neither performance area 1 (IaaS IL 4-6) nor performance area 2 (managing and operating a Test and Integration Lab) are called out explicitly as defined tasks under the current PWS. Yet it would appear that the Government intends to judge past performance relevance on both actual performance in these specific areas, as well as the associated dollar value of this limited contract scope. In order to judge contract magnitude relevance, cited contracts should be similar in scope and size to (at a minimum) the existing ITSM contract, and not estimated dollar values in several arbitrary performance areas that are not clearly linked to the scope of the solicitation's PWS. Would the Government please consider removing the requirement to estimate dollar values of work performed in the areas cited as relevant in Attachment 3, Past Performance Reference Sheet, and instead base magnitude relevance on the overall dollar value of contracts similar in scope to the overall PWS requirements? | Attachment 3 has been revised; however, the requirement to identify approximate dollar values is still valid. | |
| 40 | RFP | 21 | ITO v(c)(i) | Attachment 3, Past Performance Reference Sheet does not appear to be mentioned in the Past Performance section of the Instructions to Offerors. The section currently states "Utilizing the Past Performance Information Sheet, offerors should address the performance areas identified above." Would the Government please confirm that the foregoing should state, "Utilizing the Past Performance Reference Sheet (Attachment 3), offerors should address the performance areas identified above?" | The solicitation is amended to correct this discrepancy. | |
| 41 | RFP | 21 | ITO v(d) | Will the Government allow a Cost Narrative (including required Total Compensation Plan) to be submitted in MS-Word format as part of the Volume IV Cost/Price proposal? | Yes | |
| 42 | RFP | 21 | ITO v(d) | Would the Government please confirm that only the prime contractor’s Total Compensation Plan is required? | The Total Compensation Plan should include data setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract, inclusive of any teaming or subcontracting arrangements. | |
| 43 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 | v.(c) | In pursuing Government solicitations, companies place great emphasis on building teams that will fulfill RFP requirements, including any Past Performance qualifications. For the MITS solicitation, the Past Performance requirement for three consecutive years of performance was not revealed until shortly before the RFP release. This change significantly impacts teams that have been built over the last 12+ months leading to RFP release and severely limits the field of fully capable teams/companies that can provide USTRANSCOM with significant innovations, solutions, and services under this task. |
- Will the Government explain the rationale behind the three consecutive years of performance?
| - Will the Government remove the three consecutive years of performance requirement or reduce the requirement to one year of contiguous performance with a completed CPAR? | The requirement for proven past performance and experience is necessary for the MITS requirement. The Government has agreed to reduce the number of consecutive years from three to two years. | |||||
| 44 | RFP - HTC71122D0002 | 21 | v.c Volume III | The Governments requirement for three consecutive years of performance serves to severely limit competition. Will the Government remove that requirement and simple require the performance occur within the last five years. | No, but the Government has revised the number of consecutive years from three to two years. | |
| 45 | RFP - HTC71122D0002 | 21 | V.v Volume III | The provided Past Performance Template is roughly 3 pages per cited contract effort. Four past performance examples will not fit into the 10 page limit. Will the Government increase the page limit for Past Performance to at least 16 pages minimum? | The page limitations has been revised to 12 pages. | |
| 46 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 | (c) Volume III – Past Performance | With a shift to more Agile contracting, many contracting offices have moved to contract terms less than three years. Can the Government please consider removing the "three consecutive years of performance" requirement from the evaluation criteria? | Refer to Question 44's response. | |
| 47 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 | (c) Volume III – Past Performance | Since this contract will be a Single Award IDIQ, will the Government allow multiple task order references underneath a Single Award IDIQ as long as the project reference consists of multiple TO references from a single master contract vehicle and the individual TO references are from the same customer and demonstrate interrelated requirements? | No, an individual task order is considered a single reference. | |
| 48 | Solicitation | 21 | v. Proposal Volumes, |
c. Volume III - Past Performance,
| i. Performance Area: Providing Infrastructure-as-a Service in a GovCloud approved environment… | To our knowledge only Microsoft and AWS currently support and maintain an IL6 environment. Does the Government intend to procure and implement an IL6 environment? | Potentially. | ||||
| 49 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 | Volume II - Technical/Management | Is the ISO IEC 20000-1 Certification part of the 40-page count for Volume II Technical/Management? | Refer to Question 34's response. | |
| 50 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 21 | ITO v.(b) Volume II - Technical/Management Proposal.; Evaluation Factors for Award (EFA), vi. Factor 1, Technical Management. | The instructions for Volume II - Technical/Management Proposal require Offerors to "address offeror's Technical Management approach and will be evaluated on the offeror's response to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and the subfactors identified below." This requirement suggests that offerors must include an approach to all PWS requirements, not just PWS Sections 4 and 5.6 as is aligned to subfactors 2 and 3. However, in the Evaluation Factors for Award, the other PWS requirements (beyond subfactor 2 for PWS Section 5.6 and subfactor 3 for PWS Section 4) are not evaluated. Are offeror's required to submit a response to all PWS requirements? If yes, how will it be evaluated? | The solicitation states..."shall address offeror’s Technical Management approach and will be evaluated on the offeror’s response to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and the subfactors identified below." | |
| 51 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 21 | ITO v. (c) Volume III – Past Performance. | Would the Government consider expanding the contents of Attachment 3, Past Performance Reference Sheet, to include a brief contract summary paragraph after the Prime Contractor POC information at the bottom of the first page and before the three descriptions of relevance with respect to Performance Areas 1 through 3? | Attachment 3 is revised to reflect the addition. | |
| 52 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 | Section v. Proposal Volumes, subsection (b) Volume II - Technical/Management Proposal, item (iii) Phase Two, Subfactor 3 - Enterprise Activities and Services. | Does USTRANSCOM currently use any fit-for-purpose RPA (Robotic Process Automation) tools / technology? If so, would the Government please specify the tools/technology? | Yes, UiPath. | |
| 53 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 | Section v. Proposal Volumes, subsection (c) Volume III – Past Performance. | The Government states "If providing a reference(s) for a subcontractor, the prime offeror shall clearly state what areas the proposed subcontractor is expected to perform in support of the MITS contract, and provide a POC for the prime contractor". Does "provide a POC for the prime contractor" mean a POC for the prime contractor under which the proposed subcontractor provided the work that is being referenced; or a POC for the proposed subcontractor? | The POC for the prime contractor. Attachment 3 is revised to clarify. | |
| 54 | RFP | 22 | ITO v(e) | The instructions to offerors in v(e)(ii) requires a commitment to 35% utilization of small business concerns, whereas the table in the previous section identifies an overall small business target of 27.7%. Would the Government please clarify/reconcile these two sections? | Refer to Question 12's response. | |
| 55 | RFP | 22 | ITO v(e)ii | The instruction to offerors in v(e)(ii) state that the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 9) is excluded from the page limitation but does not address the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment 8). Would the Government confirm that there is no page limitation on any portion of the Small Business Proposal (Volume V)? | There is no page limit to any portion of Volume V as currently identified in the solicitation. | |
| 56 | HTC71122RD002 | 22 | d) Volume IV – Cost/Price Proposal | The Government asks Offerors to submit a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits. For offerors to maintain consistency, could the Government provide the format required for the compensation plan? | The format should adhere to the instructions identified in paragraph iv, Instruction to Offerors | |
| 57 | HTC71122RD002 | 22 | d) Volume IV – Cost/Price Proposal | The instructions seem to imply that the Cost/Price Proposal is limited to completing Attachment 6 they also prohibit offerors from modifying Attachment 6. May offerors include a narrative (Word document) to accompany Attachment 6, and should the total compensation plan be included in that narrative? | Volume IV is not limited to Attachment 6, as the instructions include information requiring a total compensation plan. Furthermore, paragraph iv identifies additional volume submission requirements. | |
| 58 | Solicitation | 22 | v. Proposal Volumes, | |||
| (d) Volume IV - Cost/Price Proposal: "As part of this volume submission, offerors are required to submit for evaluation a total compensation plan..." | As the details of many compensation plans are proprietary, are Subcontractors required to provided a sealed submission of their company's specific compensation plans? | Refer to Question 42's response. | ||||
| 59 | HTC71122RD002 | 23 | (e)Volume V - Small Business Proposal | The Small Business requirement is 27.7% in the Small Business Matrix Table and later references the "commitment as 35% utilization". Could the Government clarify the percentage of Small Business commitment? | A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is subject to Federal Acquisition Regulation as well as statutory requirements. The matrix provided our suggested subcontracting target goals to assist in development. The Government, is however, seeking a larger percentage of utilization in the performance of the MITS contract | |
| 60 | HTC71122RD002 | 23 | e) Volume V - Small Business Proposal | The Small Business target is 27.7% in the Small Business Matrix Table. Please confirm that this target is not stand alone, and is inclusive of the Government's other targets for Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business and HUBZone Certified Small Business. | Refer to Question 12's and 59's response. | |
| 61 | HTC71122RD002 | 23 | e) Volume V - Small Business Proposal | Attachment 9 is referenced under paragraph e)ii. Small Business Participation Plan; however, Attachment 9 was not provided with the RFP as an attachment. Would the Government please provide Attachment 9? | Attachment 9 was inadvertently excluded from the original solicitation. It is included in Amendment 0002. | |
| 62 | Solicitation | 23 | v. Proposal Volumes, |
(e) Volume V - Small Business Proposal,
| ii. Small Business Participation Plan (Applies to all businesses) | This Solicitation references a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 9). There was not an Attachment 9 in the Solicitation Files...would the Government please provide or should vendors develop their own Commitment Document? | This was an administrative oversight. Attachment 9 is included in the solicitation amendment. | ||||
| 63 | HTC71122RD002 | 23 | Small Business Participation Plan | Specifies "Offerors shall also submit a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Documents (Attachment 9)." Would the Government provide Attachment 9? | Refer to Question 62's response. | |
| 64 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 23 | ITO v.(e) ii. | |||
| Small Business Participation Plan | Section (e), Paragraph ii states "(Applies to all businesses). Offerors shall also submit a completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 9)". In review of Solicitation Package, we do not see Attachment 9. It is respectfully requested that the government provide us Attachment 9. | Refer to Question 62's response. | ||||
| 65 | HTC71122RD002.pdf | 23 | ITO v.(e) i. Small Business Subcontracting Plan & ii. | |||
| Small Business Participation Plan | In paragraph i, the Small Business Subcontracting Goals are identified as 27.7%. However, in paragraph ii requires a commitment to 35% utilization of small business concerns. Would the Government please clarify/reconcile the small business subcontracting requirements in these two sections? Additionally, will the Government clarify if the identified goals/targets are a percentage of subcontracting costs or total contract value (TCV) in the performance of this contract? | Refer to Question 12's response. | ||||
| 66 | Solicitation | 24 | Evaluation Factors for Award: iii. Number of Contracts to be Awarded | For the Task Orders to be awarded under this IDIQ, does the Government intend to have Task Orders that are specific to specific Performance Areas of the PWS, or will each Task Order be scoped for specific functions including a mixture of the PWS performance areas. | Task Orders could be task/performance area dependent or have a combination of task/performance areas. | |
| 67 | PWS | 26 | 14.4 | The text of para 14.4 states, "Tasks that require (Top Secret clearances) are outlined in the table below." However, the table is empty. Can the government provide a completed table? If the positions are not identified until the Task Order is released, offerors may inadvertently under-price certain labor categories. | The PWS has been updated. | |
| 68 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 28 | Evaluation Factors for Award. viii. Factor 3. Cost/Price. | Will the Government provide the compensation levels of predecessor contractors to ensure evaluation of the compensation levels are not lower for the same work that will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employee? | The compensation levels from the predecessor contractor will not be provided. | |
| 69 | Attachment 1, PWS | 30 | Paragraph 14.17 | Reference PWS 14.17 - Governing Guidance and Directives: American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) 748: Earned Value Management (EVM), current edition. Does reference to that document mean there is a requirement to use EVM on the contract? Are offerors required to have an independently approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS) to accommodate this requirement? | No and No. | |
| 70 | PWS | 37 | Section 17.9 -- Transition-In Plan | "For the first one hundred twenty calendar days, the incoming contractor personnel will be provided transitional training (i.e., will work side-by-side with or shadow the outgoing contractor on the local processes and procedures for performance of day-to-day duties, specifically deliverables." | ||
| Assuming the incumbent contractor has been granted a 6-month extension taking them to 09/03/2022 and full performance to start on 12/01/2022 for the new contract, what is the plan for ensuring the 120 day overlap between the incoming contractor personnel and the outgoing incumbent? | The PWS has been updated. | |||||
| 71 | HTC71122RD003 | 19 of 71 | Instructions to Offerors, iv. Organization/ Page Limits, Proposal Submission | 2nd paragraph states: "All proposal volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF), Version XI". Because Adobe Acrobat XI's end of life was 2017, please confirm that Adobe Acrobat Pro DC is acceptable. | The solicitation is amended to clarify. | |
| 72 | Attachment 1 - PWS | 10 of 45 | 5.3 | Is there a customer ratio for CST/FACSM to customer that we should target such as 250:1 This will greatly impact planning and building SLA and maturing operations. | The offeror should identify target customer ratio as a part of their business and industry practices. | |
| 73 | HTC71122RD002_Final | |||||
| 16 & 19 | Instructions to Offerors; ii. General Proposal Guidance and v. (Proposal Volumes) | |||||
| (a) Volume I - Business Proposal | On page 16, the RFP states: "The offeror shall make a clear statement in the Volume I cover page that the proposal is valid for a minimum of 180 days from the proposal due date." On page 19, under the Executive Summary instructions, it states that we shall confirm the proposal is valid for a minimum of 180 days from the proposal due date. Will the Government clarify if we should include the 180 validity statement on the Cover Page of Volume I or within the Executive Summary of Volume I. Business Proposal? | The solicitation is amended to clarify. | ||||
| 74 | Attachment 1 - PWS | 16 of 45 | 13.1.1.2 | Can offerors provide SME's on an as needed project basis or must all staff be FTEs on the contract? | This information would be evaluated and negotiated at the task order level. | |
| 75 | HTC71122RD002 | 18 of 71 | Instructions to Offerors, iv. Organization/ Page Limits, Page Size and Format | In regards to graphics, tables, charts - (1) does use of Arial include the use of Arial Narrow? (2) Would a consideration be made to revise the graphics/tables font to 8 pt Arial Narrow? | Refer to Question 17's response. | |
| 76 | HTC71122RD006 | 18 of 71 | Instructions to Offerors, iv. Organization/ Page Limits, Page Limitations | RFP states: Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information". Please advise if text boxes are permitted as long as they only contain text, and no links, hidden text, pop-up links, etc.? | No. | |
| 77 | HTC71122RD007 | 18 of 71 | Instructions to Offerors, iv. Organization/ Page Limits, Page Size and Format | Would it be acceptable to use 8.5x11 landscape pages for larger graphics? | No | |
| 78 | Solicitation | 19 - 20 | v. Proposal Volumes, |
(a) Volume I - Business Proposal,
| (2) Solicitation/Contract Form | Section (v)(a)(2) of the Solicitation lists FAR clauses to be completed and submitted by the offeror. However, the Solicitation includes additional FAR clauses that require a representation or certification. Please confirm that only the FAR clauses listed in Section (v)(a)(2) are to be submitted by Offerors. | Additional provisions that require representation or certification have been identified in (v)(a)(2). | ||||
| 79 | HTC71122RD002 | 21 and 26 | v.(c) and vii.a() | The stipulation that past performance (PP) references must demonstrate three consecutive years of performance is overly restrictive, will result in proposals of less quality, and increases the chance of a protest. There are many scenarios--through extensions, J&As, bridge contracts, etc.--where this requirement will bar offeror past performance from being considered. Typically past performance reference requirements require performance with the last three or five years and do not have "consecutive years of performance" language. In fact, USTRANSCOM's current cloud environment provider, ECS, is restricted from using their 4 years of consecutive past performance since it spans two 2-year contracts. Recommend removing the requirement for three consecutive years of performance to allow offerors greater latitude in submitting their best past performance references for consideration by the source selection board. At the very minimum, strongly recommend reducing the consecutive years requirement from three to two. | Refer to Question 36's response. | |
| 80 | HTC71122RD002 | 22 of 71 | Instructions to Offerors (d) Volume IV - Cost/Price Proposal | As part of this volume, offerors are required to submit for evaluation a total compensation plan. Is this a requirement for only the prime offeror or do subcontractors also have to submit a separate plan? | Refer to Question 42's response. | |
| 81 | HTC71122RD002_Final and Attachment 9 | 22-23 | Instructions to Offerors. v.(e). Volume V – Small Business Proposal. i-ii. SB Subcontracting Plan and SB Participation Plan | In the Instructions to Offerors, Volume V.v(e)i, the Government has stated the Small Business Subcontracting Plan has a goal of 27.7%. In the Instructions to Offerors, Volume V.v(e)ii, Small Business Participation Plan, the Offeror’s commitment to the utilization of small business is 35%. In the Attachment 9, Small Business Commitment Plan, the Total Proposed Domestic Subcontracting minimum value is 40%. Please confirm that 27.7% will be the small business goal for the MITS contract. | Attachment 8 has been updated | |
| 82 | HTC71122RD004 | 23 of 71 | Instructions to Offerors, v. Proposal Volume, (e) Volume V – Small Business Proposal, ii. Small Business Participation Plan | This paragraph states that offerors shall submit a completed SB Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 9). The Attachment 9 was not included with the Final RFP package. | Refer to Question 62's response. | |
| 83 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 28-29 | Evaluation Factors for Award. viii. Factor 3. Cost/Price. | Will the Government provide the estimated quantity/labor hours for each labor category, in each year, as part of the solicitation to better understand the Government's calculation and evaluation methodology of each offerors total proposed price and ensure performance risk minimization? | The Government will not provide the estimated quantity/labor hours. | |
| 84 | HTC71122RD002 | 29 of 71 | Evaluation Factors for Award: viii. Factor 3, Cost/Price | Please provide clarification on the evaluation for “compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors” as listed in the following paragraph. Would the Government provide the compensation levels from the predecessor contractor to provide an even playing field? |
| "The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. " | The Government will not provide the compensation levels from the predecessor contract. | |
| 85 | Attachment 8, SB Subcontracting Plan Template and Attachment 9, SB Participation Commitment Document |
3 - 5;
| 2 | Section III Goals. Section (b)(c) | Due to the only pricing being submitted in support of the solicitation are labor rates, would the Government consider removing the dollar amounts for the subcontracting goals? If not, how should the offeror create the costs? Will the Government provide hours to multiply said rates? | Attachment 8 and 9 have been revised to reflect percentages | |||
| 86 | Attachment 1 - PWS | 37 of 45 | 17.9 | Please verify whether the Transition-In period is 120 or 90 days? | The PWS has been updated. | |
| 87 | HTC71122RD002_Final | 4 and 28 | Supplies/Services and Evaluation Factors for Award. viii. Factor 3. Cost/Price. | Would the government consider allowing applicable burdens (e.g. G&A) for approved ODC purchases and travel applied to be consistent with approved DCMA/DCAA indirect disclosure statements and offeror total cost accounting practices? | No. The Government is not anticipating significant purchases or travel for the MITS IDIQ. | |
| 88 | HTC71122RD002 | 4 of 71; 28 of 71 | CLIN 0003 and 0004; Evaluation Factors viii Factor 3, Cost/Price | RFP states: Applicable burdens (e.g., G&A) will not be accepted or paid for approved ODC purchases. However G&A are "costs" associated with the contract. Would the Government please remove this limitation? | No | |
| 89 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 4 of 9 | 4. Organization / Page Limits; Page Size and Format | This paragraph states: "For all tables, charts, graphs and figures included in the proposal, the text shall be no smaller than 11-point Arial or Times New Roman font." |
| Would the government consider allowing a minimum font size of 10p-point Arial or Times New Roman for text in tables, charts, graphs, and figures? | Refer to Question 17's response. | ||||
| 90 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 4 of 9 | iv. Organization/Page Limited | This section specifies that Volume III: Past Performance Proposal is limited to 10 pages (not including consent letters). The file "Attachment 3 - Past Performance Refrnce Sheet" provided with the RFP is 3 pages prior to even being filled out by bidders. There are four references required. |
| Was it the intent of the government to allow for three pages per reference (which would result in 12 pages) or to limit the overall page limit for Volume III to 10 pages? | Refer to Question 45's response | ||||
| 91 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 7 of 9 | Section v. Proposal Volumes, subsection (c) Volume III – Past Performance. | This section of the RFP states: "If providing a reference(s) for a subcontractor, the prime offeror shall clearly state what areas the proposed subcontractor is expected to perform in support of the MITS contract, and provide a POC for the prime contractor." |
| The file "Attachment 3 - Past Performance Refrnce Sheet" with the RFP doesn't appear to provide a specific section to address the areas a subcontractor is expected to perform in support of the MITS contract. Would the government please clarify where it wants bidders to provide this information in Attachment 3? | Attachment 3 has been revised to identify critical aspects of work performed as it relates to the MITS effort. | |||||
| 92 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 7 of 9 | (c) Volume III - Past Performance | The RFP included the file "Attachment 3 - Past Performance Refrnce Sheet" which appears to be a pre-made format for bidders to use for their four past performance references. Paragraph (c) does not mention this file, but only the "Past Performance Information Sheet" which only requires information about to whom the "Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire" has been sent to. It appears the RFP is confusing Attachment 3 and Attachment 5. Please clarify. | Refer to Question 7 's response. | |
| 93 | HTC71122RD002 - Amd 1 | 7 of 9 | (c) Volume III - Past Performance | This section states "Utilizing the Past Performance Information Sheet, offerors should address the performance areas identified above." |
| The Past Performance Information Sheet requests only the contact information for people to whom the Past Performance Questionnaires have been sent to. It appears this sentence should be referencing "Attachment 3 - Past Performance Refrnce Sheet" Please clarify. | The solicitation is amended to reflect "Past Performance Reference Sheet" | ||||
| 94 | Attachment 1 - PWS | 9 of 45 | 4.4. Information Technology Service Management | The RFP States "All contractor personnel supporting this task shall be ITIL Foundation certified." This is specified under a number of tasks. |
| Would the government please amend the verbiage to include: "or attain certification within 90 days of starting work." This would allow time for any incumbent personnel to get the required certification as well as provide. | The Government has considered the request and will not be amending the PWS. | |||||
| 95 | Attachment 1 - PWS | 9 of 45 | 5.1 | Should we provide certified personnel to support "development" or are engineering services provided by the government? | The offeror should provide personnel in accordance with the information contained in the PWS and Attachment 6 of the solicitation. | |
| 96 | Attachment 3 - Past Performance Refrnce Sheet | All | All | Will the government allow bidders to use their own template to provide the four required references, as long as the template includes the same information in a relatively similar format? | No, offerors must utilize the template provided in Attachment 3. |
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 .