Atch 10 - QA Template Rev.1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Integrated Data Environment & Global Transportation Network Convergence (IGC) Amend 3 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC71124QD003
About this file
This document is a Request for Quotation (RFQ) from the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) for the Integrated Data Environment & Global Transportation Network Convergence (IGC) program. The RFQ is a total small business set-aside for Women-Owned Small Businesses holding a GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract with SIN 54151S for IT Professional Services. The RFQ seeks quotations for a task order with Firm Fixed Price, Labor Hour, and Time-and-Materials line items to provide services including software development, monitoring and production support, exercise support, risk management framework support, cloud migration, and operations support. The period of performance is a 12-month base period with four 12-month option periods. Quotations are due by May 16, 2024 at 10:00 am CT. Questions on the RFQ must be received by April 30, 2024 at 10:00 am CT. Access to the technical data package is granted upon submission of a non-disclosure agreement.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 23
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
RFQ Q&A
| HTC71124QD003 | |||||
| Integrated Data Environment & Global Transportation Network Convergence (IGC) | |||||
| RFQ - Question and Answer Template | |||||
| Reference Solicitation Document/Attachment | Page # | Reference Section/Paragraph | Offeror Question/Comment | Government Response | |
| Number | Example: Attachment 1 , PWS | 16 | Paragraph 2.3.2.1. | Please verify what the acronym "CP&CD" stands for | |
| 1 | General question | Can the Government please provide a one-week extension to the RFQ due date, to 23 May, to allow for more time to review the additional IGC documents provided through the DoD SAFE service? | The RFQ due date has been extended to 24 May 24, 3:00 pm (CT). Please refer to RFQ Amend 2. | ||
| 2 | IGC RFQ | 3 | II. General Instructions for Quotation Submission |
III Past Performance
| Past Performance (Performance Areas 1-4) | Can the Government please clarify whether the 16 page limit for past performance is intended to be 4 pages per past performance project, or can be allocated differently to the 4 past performances as long as the total for all 4 does not exceed 16 pages? In other words, one past performance may be 5 pages while another may be 3 pages? | Reference RFQ Section II.C.i. In this Volume, the Schedule Contractor shall submit no more than four (4) examples of Government and/or commercial contracts/work efforts for initiatives similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to IGC. Section II.C.i.b. Each reference shall not exceed one (1) page per performance area. Each past performance reference shall not exceed four (4) pages; however, each Past Performance References does not need to reflect experience in all performance areas. 4 examples of work x 4 performance areas at 1 page each equals the 16 page limit. | ||
| 3 | IGC RFQ | 3 | II. General Instructions for Quotation Submission |
III Past Performance
| Past Performance Reference Sheets | Can the Government please clarify the instruction for one page per performance area in the Past Performance Reference Sheet (PPRS) template to mean that a completed PPRS will consist of approximately 4.5 pages - 1 page maximum per performance area plus the overall contract information half-page? | Reference RFQ Amend 2. Section II - Table, Volume III - Past Performance (Performance Areas 1-4) page limit is 16 pages (Excludes Cover Sheet). Atch 7 has been formatted to allow for 1 page per performance area. The first page of each PP Reference Sheet is considered a Cover Sheet. Reference Atch 7 - PP Reference Sheet Rev. 1. | ||||
| 4 | PWS | 18 | 1.5.3.1 | What tools does Gov use for monitoring? How are these deployed and managed? | Reference PWS Section 4.6. IGC uses custom scripts, COTS (Informatica, Teradata), remote access tools (Citrix, VDI), and DISA provided tools (Sitescope). Refer to PWS Section 1.5.3. All monitoring capability is deployed in each of the IGC environments and they are managed by the Monitoring Support, Production Support, and Help Desk. | |
| 5 | PWS | 18 | 1.5.3.2 | What tools does Gov use for monitoring? How are these deployed and managed? | Reference PWS Section 4.6. IGC uses custom scripts, COTS (Informatica, Teradata), remote access tools (Citrix, VDI), and DISA provided tools (Sitescope). Refer to PWS Section 1.5.3. All monitoring capability is deployed in each of the IGC environments and they are managed by the Monitoring Support, Production Support, and Help Desk. | |
| 6 | PWS | 21 | 1.5.3.7 | How many environments exist with DISA and/or Cloud in support of IGC infrastructure? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.3: "IGC EDW development and test environments, IGC EDW unclassified primary and alternate production environments, and IGC EDW classified primary and alternate production environments" IGC has 6 environments at DISA locations, no Cloud environments. | |
| 7 | PWS | 21 | 1.5.3.8 | How many BOBJ applications are deployed and need to be supported that integrate with or using this SAP BO? What is the SLA? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.3, the BOBJ capability is deployed as 6 different instances in IGC environments. There is an End User License Agreement (EULA) not a Service Level Agreement (SLA). | |
| 8 | PWS | 21 | 1.5.3.9 | How many applications within IGC are deployed that integrate with or using this Cognos? What does gov mean by mash-up support? What is the SLA? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.3. The Cognos BI capability is used for reporting and analytics on data in Oracle and Teradata databases as 6 different instances in IGC environments. Mashup is a Cognos capability. There is a EULA instead of a SLA. | |
| 9 | PWS | 21 | 1.5.3.10 | Will the offerors be responsible for migration / management of data and apps during tech refreshes? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.3.10. Yes, the successful offeror will be responsible for migration and management of data and apps during tech refreshes. The contractor shall support hardware technical refreshes of IGC Teradata hardware. The contractor shall provide technical input, installation of the COTS and IGC product baselines on the equipment, data migration and testing. | |
| 10 | Attachment 1, PWS | 15, 24 | 1.5.2.4, 1.5.6 | Both of these paragraphs allude to a government hosted cloud instance. 1.5.6 states "The contractor shall utilize USTRANSCOM enterprise capabilities and cloud native services when available", and 1.5.2.4 states "Once IGC is migrated and operational in an Unclassified and Classified Government Cloud". Please clarify if is the intent of the government to host a native cloud environment or if it is expected that the contractor will host the cloud instance. | Reference PWS Section 1.5.2.4. Once IGC is migrated and operational in an Unclassified and Classified Government Cloud, the contractor shall provide expertise required to operate and maintain the Development, Test, and Production environments to reliably and efficiently compile, build, and deploy code. Refer to PWS Section 1.5.6. The contractor shall utilize USTRANSCOM enterprise capabilities and cloud native services when available. The Government will host the cloud environment. | |
| 11 | Attachment 1, PWS | 16 | Surge Support | Some tasks may require 2 FTE and 4 sprints to complete. Additional FTE's would not result in faster completion. Is the 6 FTE's a fixed number? Would Surge Support be executed for up to 6 FTE's? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.2.8 and 1.5.6.8. The contractor shall provide one scrum team equal to 6 FTEs on a team per sprint for up to 6 additional 4 week sprints per PoP. The PWS remains unchanged. | |
| 12 | Attachment 1, PWS | 16 | 1.5.2.8 Surge Support | Is this to be priced at a rate of 6 FTEs for 6, 4 week sprints? Or 6, 5 week sprints? | Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- PWS Section 1.5.2.8 was revised to reflect 4 week sprints. | |
| 13 | Attachment 1, PWS | 26 | 1.5.6.8 Surge Support | Is this to be priced at a rate of 6 FTEs for 6, 4 week sprints? Or 6, 5 week sprints? | Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- PWS Section 1.5.2.8 was revised to reflect 4 week sprints. | |
| 14 | Attachment 1, PWS | 38 | 3.3 SIPRNET / 4.1 Place of Performance | Paragraph 4.1 states "Up to eight workspaces will be available onsite at USTRANSCOM facilities." Can you clarify the need for the contractor to have SIPRNET capability at the contractor facility? | Reference PWS 3.3 -- the Contractor must have access to SIPRNET to fulfill this requirement. If the contractor facility does not have Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) access, the Government will facilitate coordination with Scott AFB, IL and USTRANSCOM for the contractor to meet this requirement. The Government will not pay for SIPR access at the contractor’s facility. | |
| 15 | Attachment 2, PWS | 38 | 4.1 Place of Performance, para 1 | Will telework be authorized? | Yes. Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- PWS Sections 1.5.3.1, 1.5.3.2 and 4.1 were revised to further define specific onsite requirements, telework and remote work | |
| 16 | Attachment 1, PWS | 42 | 4.10.1.3 Privileged User, para. 1 | We do not see a paragraph 1.1.2 defining a residential qualification as stated in the pws | Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- PWS Section 4.10.1.3 was revised to accurately reflect the intended PWS paragraph. | |
| 17 | Attachment 1, PWS | 5 | 1.3 Scope, para 2 | Will the contractor be required to access the DISA DECC Development environment via GFE laptops. | Yes, the successful offeror will be required to access the DISA DECC Development environment via Government Furnished laptops in performance of the contract. | |
| 18 | Attachment 9 Pricing Template | Price Quote Tab | CLIN 1013, 2013, 3013, & 4013 totals are excluded from the total in Option Period 1, 2, 3, & 4. Is it the government's intent to have those CLIN's included in their respective totals? | Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 9 - Pricing Template Rev. 1. CLINS 1013, 2013, 3013, and 4013 are now included in the totals for each respective Period of Performance. | ||
| 19 | Attachment 9 Pricing Template | Task Area Breakout | Confirm the government is looking for the Labor Category Title and not the Labor Category Description in Column A. | Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 9 - Pricing Template Rev. 1. Provide the Labor Category Title in Column A of the Labor Rates Tab and not the Labor Category Description. | ||
| 20 | RFQ | 3 | Section II | The table indicates a limit of 16 pages for past performance as a whole, and a limit of 1 page per performance area for each reference sheet. The top half of the first page of Attachment 7, PP Reference Sheet is taken up by contract data. This seems to either limit the description of relevance to Performance Area 1 to half a page, or have the potential for each PP Reference to extend onto page five of each completed sheet. To retain the government's intent, would the government change the overall past performance page limit from 16 to 20 and direct that in each PP reference the contract details shall appear on page 1 and each performance area description shall appear on its own subsequent page? | See question 3 response. | |
| 21 | RFP | 6 | Section II.C. | Past Performance Questionnaires are to be provided to customer references. Please provide submission information and deadline for the references to submit the completed PPQs. | Reference Atch 8 - PP Questionnaire Rev. 1. Due date has been revised. "Complete the following questionnaire and return via email no later than 1000 (CT) 31 May 2024." | |
| 22 | RFP | 3 | Section II.C. | Are fonts other than Times New Roman acceptable in headings, tables, and graphics? | No. Reference Section II. "All Adobe, Excel, and Word documents shall be submitted using Times New Roman 12-point font/size and single spaced. Smaller font size is allowed in pricing Excel spreadsheets as well as graphics, tables, figures, etc.; however, it shall not be any smaller than 8. Margins shall be no smaller than 1”." Times New Roman 12-point is the only acceptable font/size for Adobe, Excel, and Word documents. | |
| 23 | RFP | 9 | Section III.B.3, C.2.iv | Section B indicates past performance will be evaluated on the basis of "confidence" or "no confidence." Section C indicates it will be evaluated on the basis of "substantial confidence," "satisfactory confidence," or "limited to no confidence." Please clarify that the evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section B, Evaluation Process. | Reference RFQ Amend 2. Section B.3. was revised to reflect the Past Performance ratings in Section C.2.ii. | |
| 24 | PWS | 18 | Section 1.5.3.2 | Please provide historical data for level 2 and 3 help desk tickets opened per month. | Level II - Averages 90 Tickets a month. Level III - Averages 18 Tickets a month. | |
| 25 | PWS | 16 | Section 1.5.3 | For all functional PWS sections except Task Area 3: Monitoring and Production Application Support, numbers of FTEs are provided. To enable offerors to develop firm fixed price bids, please provide the same level of information for Task Area 3 or more detailed descriptions of the work to be performed and task area contract deliverables. | Reference PWS Section 1.5.3 - Task Area 3 includes 24x7 monitoring, product support, infrastructure support and COTS support. Offerors are given the flexibility to propose staffing to align with their unique technical approach to meeting these requirements. | |
| 26 | IGC RFQ | 3 | II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUOTATION SUBMISSION | The table in section II. General Instructions for Quotation Submission of the RFQ document suggests that the government is expecting the submission of past performance descriptions addressing performance areas 1-4 (with a 16 page limit) and an additional submission of the Past Performance Reference Sheet with 1 page limit per performance area (totaling to 4 pages). Can the government please confirm that past performance descriptions addressing performance areas 1-4 should be completed using the Past Performance Reference Sheet with a 1 page limit per performance area per past performance (totaling to 16 pages for 4 past performance references) and there is no need to submit them separately? | Reference RFQ Amend 2. Section II. Table has been revised to reflect a 16 page limit for Past Performance (Performance Areas 1-4), which excludes cover sheets. Each reference shall not exceed one (1) page per performance area. Past Performance Log has a limit of 1 page. | |
| 27 | TDP Files | Does the government have any new development planned for the system for next 12 months? | No. IGC is a program in sustainment. All references to development in the PWS are considered sustainment and / or enhancement of the current program. | |||
| 28 | TDP Files | Are IGC webservices components deployed both in classified and unclassified enclave? | Yes, Reference PWS sections 1.5 and 1.5.1.3 which reflect an unclassified and classified Web Service deployment. | |||
| 29 | Attachment 1: PWS | Does the government plan to expand the scope of this contract beyond the current number of FTEs? | Reference RFQ, Section B.ii. Subfactor 7, Staffing Approach. Schedule Contractors shall propose a sound Staffing Approach to include a completed Staffing Matrix (Attachment 5), which identifies the necessary personnel resources given the Schedule Contractor’s |
unique technical approach to performing the requirements. It is the Schedule Contractors responsibilty to determine the number of FTEs required to perform the PWS requirements.
| 30 | Attachment 1: PWS | Does the government expect industry to staff a certain number of FTEs prior to award? | No. | |||
| 31 | Attachment 1: PWS | Does the government expect a user increase of more than 14,000 concurrent NIPR users and 150 concurrent SIPR users? | No. | |||
| 32 | Attachment 1: PWS | Is this contract an expansion of current work? Government GFE list shows 21 units, does this equal the number of expected FTEs? If not, how many FTEs it the government expecting? | The IGC program is a recurring requirement; therefore, the successful offeror will continue development and sustainment efforts of the program upon award. The GFE list shows 21 units, currently projected to meet the requirements but is not intended to influence an Offeror's Staffing Approach to meeting the PWS requirements. | |||
| 33 | Attachment 1: PWS | What labor hours is the government expecting for FFP? | Offerors are given the flexibility to propose staffing to align with their unique technical approach to meeting the PWS requirements. | |||
| 34 | Attachment 1 PWS, Attachment 9, Pricing | page 40 of PWS, | ||||
| "Price Quote" sheet of Pricing | 4.5 Period of Performance | In the PWS, the Period of Performance includes Option Period 5, totaling 6 years. However, the pricing does not include this option year 5, end ends at option year 4, which would be 5 years total PoP. . Which is correct? | Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- Section 4.5 was revised to remove Option Period 5. | |||
| 35 | RFQ | Page 2, 4 | Table Volumes on page 2, | |||
| Section A. ii on page 4 | What information should be provided for the DD254 in Volume 1? The instruction state the information should be provided upon award: |
"Schedule Contractors shall include in Volume 1, the requisite information to complete Block 6 (a-c) of the DD Form 254 (Attachment 3) upon award."
| Schedule Contractors shall provide the information requested in A.ii. The Government will require the requested information to process the final DD254 for the successful offeror upon award. Therefore, the information is required as part of the proposal submission. | |||||
| 36 | RFQ, DD254 | Page 2, 4 | Table Volumes on page 2, | ||
| Section A. ii on page 4 | On the DD254, should block 7 be left blank? Or completed and submitted upon award? Instructions only specify block 6. | Yes, do not complete Block 7. | |||
| 37 | RFQ, DD254 | Page 1 | Block 8 | On the DD254, block 8. Actual Performance lists should block Ogden, Utah and Mechanicsburg, PA. Are these the COOP locations? | |
| Why is Scott AFB, IL not listed? | Scott AFB, IL will been included in Block 8 of Atch 3 - DD254 upon award. | ||||
| 38 | RFQ | 6 | C. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE. | Given that IAW Subpart 42.15 - Contractor Performance Information, “CPARS is the official source for past performance information,” can you confirm that if we have CPARS for a given past performance project that we are submitting as part of our four (4) projects, that we can provide this in lieu of PPQs (Attachment 8)? |
The reason we are asking this question is because requesting our customer to fill out and send a PPQ (In addition to the previously provided feedback and ratings that go into our CPARS evaluation, which is duplicative in nature) for our proposal in a timely manner presents a significant burden on our customer(s). Further, all the information that is requested for evaluation in Attachment 8 is also located in our CPARS.
| No, Offerors shall provide Atch 8 - PPQs IAW the RFQ instructions. The PPQ is tailored to align with specific performance areas for this requirement, and supplements information available through CPARS. Refer to RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 8 - PP Questionnaire Rev. 1. | ||||
| 40 | RFQ | 5 | B. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. | The RFQ states: "The Schedule Contractor shall provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology to be used for accomplishing each task(s) included in each subfactor." |
| The instructions specify addressing only the PWS tasks referenced in each of the six subfactors. Since there is no mention of Task Area 1 (PWS 1.5.1) in the subfactors, can you confirm that vendors are not required to write to this section in their RFP response? | Task Area 1 (PWS 1.5.1) is not included in the Technical Capability subfactors. However, the successful offeror shall be responsible for providing all the PWS requirements throughout performance. | ||||||
| 41 | RFQ | 7 | C. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE. | The RFQ states that the page limit for Attachment 7 "shall not exceed one page per performance area." However, the page limit for the entirety of Attachment 7 is 4 pages, and there are 4 performance areas to write (and there is contractual data that needs to be written as well). Would the Government consider increasing the page count for Attachment 7 to 5 pages? | See question 3. | ||
| 42 | RFQ | 11 | C. Evaluation Factors / 2. Past Performance | Given that small businesses typically do not have contracts this size in terms of magnitude, and in order to increase competition, would the Government consider a "Relevant" rating for magnitude of past performance anything $2 million, or larger in total contract value? If the Government will not consider redefinition of the term magnitude, would the Government allow vendors to achieve the magnitude relevancy benchmark by pooling submitted past performances to meet the threshold? | No. The definition of Relevant includes other factors besides dollar value and remains unchanged. The Schedule Contractor's overall past performance Confidence Assessment rating will consider the recency, relevancy and quality of all the references provided, which includes the Prime Offeror and Principal Subcontractors; past performance for the Subcontractors are weighted equally the same (equally as important) as the past performance of the Schedule Contractor. | ||
| 43 | Att 7 | All | Att 7 | Attachment 7 extends beyond the allotted margin size, please confirm vendors may keep it that way in the submitted volume. | Yes, Atch 7 shall remain formatted as provided by the Government with the RFQ. Refer to Atch 7 - PP Reference Sheet Rev. 1. | ||
| 44 | RFQ | 6 | C. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE. | Can the Government please define the difference between a letter of commitment and a letter of consent? Further, please advise if these two requirements can be consolidated into one document for proposal submission. | The Letter of Consent allows the prime to discuss subcontractor's past performance. The Letter of Commitment shows the subcontractor's acknowlegement of the aspects of work they are committed to performing. Yes, these can be consolidated into one document for proposal submission. | ||
| 45 | RFQ | 2 | II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUOTATION SUBMISSION | Is the "Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, if applicable" in Vol 1, intended to capture and include acronyms from all volumes? | Yes, Reference RFQ Amend 2, Section II - Table Volume I. Please provide Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, if applicable, for all Volumes in Volume 1. | ||
| 46 | RFQ | 3 | II General Instructions, Volume II | The Past Performance volume has a 16-page limit with up to four past performance references with a one-page limit per performance area for each project. Does the 16-page limit exclude the project and company detail information included in Attachment 7 that is not specific to a performance area? | See question 3. | ||
| 47 | RFQ | 1 | I. Summary of the Requirement | Paragraph "A" indicate that GSA MAS SIN 54151S is required, if offeror has other SINS on GSA, i.e. SIN 518210C "Cloud Computing and Cloud Related IT Professional Services, can the offeror utilize LCATS and pricing under that SIN? The reason we are asking is because GSA confirmed we are allowed to do this, but they recommended we ask the CO/CS for the specific requirement opportunity to confirm. | Yes. Reference RFQ Amend 2 -- This requirement is a total small business set-aside open to WOSB Schedule Contractors who possess a valid GSA MAS for Category -- Information Technology, that is in effect at the time of quotation submission. |
| 48 | PWS | 17 | 1.5.3 Task Area 3: Monitoring and Production Application Support | Can the Government provide a 90 day history of trouble tickets received within the Jira system, a high level resolution summary and time to close. This information will help offeror understand the level of production support tickets related to break fix, which has a direct correlation to available time and resources for Sprint Teams to deliver enhancement, new features and other user benefits. | IGC processes approximately 400 Helpdesk Level 1 tickets a week, of which approximately 10 are elevated to Level 2. Approximately 10 tickets/CRs a month are elevated/processed in JIRA. |
| 49 | PWS | 13 | 1.5.2 Task Area 2 - Software Development Support | Is the IBM ClearCase tool used for code repository as well as configuration management? Are there other tools outside of what is referenced within the RFQ/PWS that are currently being used? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.1.8, IBM ClearCase is used for Code Repository as well as Configuration Management. Reference RFQ Amendment 2, Atch 1 - PWS Amend 1 -- Section 4.6 was amended to include IBM ClearCase. Currently, there are no tools outside of what is referenced within the PWS being used. |
| 50 | PWS | 24 | 1.5.6 Task Area 6 Cloud Migration Support | Has the Government determined the Cloud Offering that will be used by IGC? Understand Government or Commercial cloud options are available. Has the IGC program determined that TCODE and Air Force "Cloud One" will not be used? | No. |
| 51 | IGC RFQ | 6 | Section II.C. Volume III - Past Performance | May Offerors include a one-page introduction to the Past Performance volume that is not subject to any other page limitations for that volume? | Reference RFQ Amend 2. Section II - Table, Volume III - Past Performance. A Cover Page limited to 1 page is allowable. However, the information contained within the Cover Page will NOT be evaluated as part of the Schedule Contractor's Past Performance Volume III. |
| 52 | Atch 7 - PP Reference Sheet | All | All | May Offerors modify this form for spacing as long as all information categories remain present? | No. |
| 53 | Atch 7 - PP Reference Sheet | All | All | May Offerors use a smaller font size in the form as long as the font size complies with allowable table requirements (i.e., no smaller than 8)? | No. Reference Section II. "All Adobe, Excel, and Word documents shall be submitted using Times New Roman 12-point font/size and single spaced." Times New Roman 12-point is the only acceptable font/size for Adobe, Excel, and Word documents. Smaller font size is allowed in pricing Excel spreadsheets as well as graphics, tables, figures, etc.; however, it shall not be any smaller than 8. Margins shall be no smaller than 1”. |
| 54 | IGC RFQ |
Atch 7 - PP Reference Sheet 7 All Section II.C. Volume III - Past Performance; Paragraph i.(b).
| All | Regarding the Past Performance references, the RFQ states that "each reference shall not exceed one (1) page per performance area." Since the required past performance contract data points take up much of one page, would the Government consider allowing the contract data to be its own page so that Offerors have one full page to answer each of the four Performance Area questions? That would result in five (5) pages total for each reference. | See question 3. |
| 55 | IGC RFQ |
Atch 7 - PP Reference Sheet 7
| All | Section II.C. Volume III - Past Performance; Paragraph i.(b).i. | The noted RFQ section states that “subcontractor references shall clearly indicate the major aspects of this requirement the contractor will support. This information shall correlate to the information identified in the Schedule Contractor’s Staffing Matrix submission in Volume II.” Would the Government consider removing this requirement from Past Performance since this information is not being evaluated as part of an Offeror's past performance on a program? | No. The intent is for the Schedule Contractor to ensure the staffing approach aligns with the work the subcontractor will perform per their past performance submission. | |||
| 56 | Atch 1 - PWS | 18 | Section 1.5.3.1 | Are the 24x7 Monitoring personnel (1.5.3.1) located on base? | Yes. Reference RFQ Amend 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- Sections 1.5.3.1 and 1.5.3.2 have been revised. | |
| 57 | Atch 1 - PWS | 24-26 | Section 1.5.6 | Has the Government completed a cloud migration assessment to determine scope and schedule, and to identify any potential risks for cloud migration for IGC? | Yes. | |
| 58 | IGC RFQ | 3 | Section 2 | May Offerors use a smaller 10 point font size in the headers and footers? | Reference RFQ Amend 2, Section II. "All Adobe, Excel, and Word documents shall be submitted using Times New Roman 12-point font/size and single spaced." Times New Roman 12-point is the only acceptable font/size for Adobe, Excel, and Word documents. Smaller font size is allowed in pricing Excel spreadsheets as well as graphics, tables, figures, etc.; however, it shall not be any smaller than 8. Margins shall be no smaller than 1”. | |
| 59 | Attachment 1, PWS | Is IGC planning to provision their own software factory or leverage an existing SW factory available? | Reference PWS Section 1.5.2.4 -- the Government plans to leverage an existing Software Factory for the IGC program. | |||
| 60 | Are there contingent activities or dependencies impacting software factory/infrastructure plans prior to evaluation and selection of proposal? | No. | ||||
| 61 | Attachment 2, GPF List | 1 | Paragraph 1 | Will additional laptops be provided by the Government if total full time staff count proposed exceeds the number of laptops listed in the Government Furnished Property (GFP) List? | Yes. | |
| 62 | RFQ | |||||
| Atch 5 - Staffing Matrix | 5 | Paragraph ii, Subfactor 7 | ||||
| Atch 5 - Staffing Matrix | Please clarify if Offerors can add a tab to the staffing matrix to address additional LCAT qualifications beyond the GSA MAS LCATs. | Yes, Offerors are authorized to add a tab to Attachment 5 -- Staffing Matrix to identify any additional qualifications beyond the Schedule Contractor's GSA MAS. | ||||
| 63 | RFQ | 3 | Paragraph 1 | Regarding font size, the RFQ states, “All Adobe, Excel, and Word documents shall be submitted using Times New Roman 12- point font/size and single spaced. Smaller font size is allowed in pricing Excel spreadsheets as well as graphics, tables, figures, etc.; however, it shall not be any smaller than 8.” Will the Government accept the use of Arial fonts in lieu of Times New Roman for graphics, tables, and figures? | No. Reference Section II. "All Adobe, Excel, and Word documents shall be submitted using Times New Roman 12-point font/size and single spaced." Times New Roman 12-point is the only acceptable font/size for Adobe, Excel, and Word documents. Times New Roman is the only acceptable font. | |
| 64 | RFQ | 3 | Paragraph A.i | The RFQ states that Offerors shall include their DUNS code in the cover letter. Since the use of the DUNS in the SAM registry was phased out in April of 2022, would the Government rather see the Offerors' UEI number? | Reference RFQ Amend 2, Section 2.A.i.. Yes, Schedule Contractor's shall include their UEI Number and not a DUNS code. | |
| 65 | PWS | 13-16 | 1.5.2 | How many Change Requests (CRs) (broken out by size – e.g., minor, intermediate, moderate, major, and epic or however the Government categorizes them) are anticipated to be in backlog at contract award and what is the Government’s expectation of timeline to clear them? |
Minor – Labor effort is 0-99 hours Intermediate – Labor effort is 100-249 hours Moderate – Labor effort is 250 hours to 499 hours Major – Labor effort is 500-749 hours Epic – Labor effort is 750 – 999 hours
| 462 CRs are anticipated to be in the backlog at time of award. The program clears (resolves) approximately 100 CRs a year. CRs are not broken out by size; CRs are broken out by priority. | ||||||
| 66 | PWS | 15 | ||||
| 21 | 1.5.2.3 | |||||
| 1.5.3.7 | How many system patches are anticipated to be in backlog at contract award and what is the Government’s expectation of the timeline to clear them? | |||||
| Reference RFQ Amend 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- Section 1.5.2.3 COTS Support. Patches do not release on a set schedule so the backlog of patches is rotating. PWS Section 1.5.3.4 was revised to reflect the contractor shall follow the USTC Vulnerability Management Standard Operating Procedure. | ||||||
| 67 | PWS | 16, 22-24 | 1.5.2.5, 1.5.5 | How many security POA&Ms are expected to be in backlog at contract award and what is the Government's expectation of the timeline to clear them? | IGC has 107 POAMs with varying timelines to complete. | |
| 68 | PWS | 13-16 | ||||
| 26-27 | 1.5.2 | |||||
| 1.5.7 | How many development efforts are started and completed each month? What is the nature of them (e.g. Web services, BO, Cognos)? | |||||
| Reference PWS Section 1.5., Table 1 for the development cycle (start/end). The nature of the development efforts are outlined in PWS 1.5.2 and include all code modules and COTS products. | ||||||
| 69 | PWS | 13 | 1.5.2 | How many software releases are made per year, on average? How many software releases are estimated per year for this contract? | Historically, on average, IGC had 10 software releases per year Reference the Sprint schedule in PWS 1.5, the Government expects 12 software releases per year under the contract awarded in response to this solicitation. | |
| 70 | PWS | 27 | 1.5.7.2 | How many computer based training modules currently exist? How many new computer based training modules are anticipated per year? | ||
| There are 45 existing Computer Based Trainings (CBT)s. The Government does not anticipate any new CBTs at this time. | ||||||
| 71 | PWS | 34 | Table 4: Contract Deliverables | The Deliverables Table within the PWS states for Task 4.7 the Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan is due within 20 business days after contract award. The RFP instructions pages 3, 6, and 10 state to deliver a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan with the proposal. Please clarify which is correct. | Reference RFQ Amend 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1 -- Section 1.6, Table 4 was revised. Offerors shall submit the Mission Essential Plan IAW the RFQ. | |
| 72 | RFQ | |||||
| PWS | 3 | |||||
| 33 | Section II, table |
Table 4: Contract Deliverables
III. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS FOR AWARD, A. Approach Will the Government consider removing Subfactor 8: Mission Essential Plan from the proposal and allow it to be delivered post award as indicated in the Deliverables Table since this deliverable will only be required of the Awardee and is considered CUI?
| If not, would the government consider evaluating Technical Subfactor 8, Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan on a Pass/Fail basis rather than of equal importance as the other subfactors. Many RFPs use a Pass/Fail approach because this plan is somewhat formulary per DFARS 252.237-7024 specifications. | No. Reference RFQ Section III.C.1.For Technical Capability, the Government will evaluate each subfactor (1-8) and assign one overall Technical rating. There is not a separate rating for Subfactor 8, Mission Essential Plan; the Government will not add one. | |||||
| 73 | Attachment 1, PWS | 42 | Paragraph 4.10.1.3 | This section states, “Privileged Users require a Residential Qualification CEC as defined in paragraph 1.1.2 and…” Please clarify what paragraph 1.1.2 is referencing as there is no 1.1.2 within the PWS. | See Question 16. | |
| 74 | Attachment 1, PWS | 65-66 | ||||
| 41-42 | Appendix F, Column J | |||||
| Paragraph PWS 4.10.1.2 | The required Residential Qualification Certifications per DoDD 8140 are at the component’s discretion. Appendix F, Column J indicates when a computing environment certification is required but does not specify any particular certifications. Will the Government be providing the specific computing environment certifications they require for each position? | Yes. Reference RFQ Amend 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1, Appendix F, Column J was updated to reflect the IGC Computing Environment Certification. | ||||
| 75 | Attachment 1, PWS | 65-66 | Appendix F, Columns E-H | The Government has selected up to three cyber work role codes for each subtask of the PWS. Please clarify, for PWS subtasks where multiple cyber work role codes are assigned, is it the Government’s expectation that Offerors staff those subtasks with personnel who meet any one of the workforce requirements defined for that subtask? For example, for Subtask 1.5.3.1, the Government assigned three cyber work role codes: 451, 421, and 531. May Offerors staff 1.5.3.1 with personnel who meet any one of the workforce requirements defined for 451, 421, or 531? | Yes. Reference RFQ Amend 2, Atch 1 - PWS Rev. 1, Appendix F - Cyber Work Roles were updated. | |
| 76 | RFQ | 6 | Paragraph a. | This section states, “Schedule Contractors shall also ensure the PPQs (Attachment 8) are provided to the appropriate representative for each of the Government and/or commercial contracts referenced in the Past Performance Log and in the Past Performance Reference Sheets.” Will the Government allow vendors to submit their most recent CPARS in place of submitting a PPQ to represent the Government's perspective on Past Performance? | No, provide Atch 8 - PP Questionnaires. The PPQ is tailored to align with specific performance areas for this requirement, and supplements information available through CPARS. Refer to Atch 8 - PP Questionnaires Rev. 1. | |
| 77 | Attachment 9 – Pricing Template | Instruction Tab | Number 5 | Instructions state "Schedule Contractors shall ensure the totals on the "Price Quote" Tab match the totals on the "Task Area Breakout" Tab." There are no totals by CLIN on the Task Area Breakout Tab. Will the government be providing an updated template or should the offeror add a row? | Reference RFQ Amend 2, RFQ - Atch 9 Pricing Rev. 1 was updated. | |
| 78 | Attachment 9 – Pricing Template | Instruction Tab and Labor Rate Tab | Instructions state "Schedule Contractors shall complete Columns A and B on the "Labor Rates" Tab. Schedule Contractors shall add their GSA MAS rate any discounts applied and their proposed rate for each period of performance." However, the Labor Rates tab does not differentiate between government site and contractor site. Instead, it provides only one column for Discounted rate. Please advise how to present each rate within the tab. | Reference RFQ Amend 2, RFQ - Atch 9 Pricing Rev. 1 was updated. | ||
| 79 | Attachment 9 – Pricing Template | Price Quote Tab | CLINs x009 / x010 | These rows are blank. Will the government be providing a plug number? Or is this intentionally left blank? | Reference RFQ Amend 2. Section II.D was revised for clarity. | |
| 80 | Atch 5 - Staffing Matrix | Task Order Lifecycle Tab | RFP page 5 | Multiple project roles may be encapsulated into a single GSA MAS LCAT. Instructions for Atch 5 in the RFP indicate we must use the GSA MAS LCAT and not the project role. Yet the Labor Rates Tab of the pricing spreadsheet identified the "GSA Labor Category" in column A and "Labor Category as identified in the Staffing Matrix" in Column B (i.e. project role). Please confirm Offerors may use project role (not necessarily the GSA MAS LCAT) in the Labor category cells in Atch 5. | Yes, offerors may use project roles in the Labor Category cells in Atch 5. If project roles are used, provide a crosswalk of the Project Roles to GSA Labor Categories in Tab "Labor Category Crosswalk." Reference updated Atch 5 - Staffing Matrix Rev. 1. | |
| RFP Subfactor 7 Staffing Approach | Labor Rates Tab | |||||
| Atch 9 - Pricing Template | ||||||
| 81 | RFQ | 6 | C. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE. | As a Subcontractor, can we reference our current work in support of a Prime as a PPQ for the active solicitation? | Yes. The PPQ shall be completed by the cognizant Contracting Officer Representative (COR)/Agency the Schedule Contractor contracted with and emailed directly to the Contract Specialist (CS) and CO. | |
| 82 | RFQ -- Atch 8 | N/A | With the release of Amendment 1 to revise the proposal due date to 24 May 2024, at 10:00 am (CT), can the Government please confirm that the revised proposal date will apply to the Past Performance Questionnaire as well? | The due date for receipt of PPQs was extended to 31 May 2024. | ||
| RFQ | 4 | Volume I - Contract Documentation, Paragraph 3 | The RFQ indicates that Schedule Contractors shall possess a valid GSA MAS for NAICS 541511. When GSA Schedule MAS Refresh 16 was released on May 19, 2023, GSA changed the NAICS codes for SIN 54151S to include ONLY NAICS 541519, Other Computer Related Services. Please clarify if NAICS 541511 is correct or if the RFQ is solicited under the incorrect NAICS. Additionally, if 541511 is correct, does the Schedule Contractor need to have that NAICS on their MAS contract or is having 54151S sufficient? | NAICS 541511 is the correct NAICS for this requirement. The GSA MAS Category has been revised. Reference RFQ Amend 2, Section II.A.i. -- Schedule Contractors shall possess a valid GSA MAS for NAICS 541511 that is in effect at the time of quotation submission. |
RFQ--Attachment 10
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .