I. B-08 GPS Solicitation - Industry Q&A - ALL.pdf

Question ID Question USG Response

Corresponding

Amendment Status: Closed/Open

Q1

The USG requires the use of the PIEE Solicitation module to track changes and amendments to customer documents. However, the solicitation number is not listed in the PIEE module. Will the government please specify when the solicitation will be added to

PIEE?

Solicitation & Amendments posted on SAM.gov and in

PIEE NA Closed

Q2

In GPS Attachment 0007, PWS Reference # 9.2 Mobilization Plan, the table indicates that a Mobilization Plan is required both with the

IDIQ Proposal and with a Task Order Proposal. However, the Notes state that the Mobilization Plan is due within 24 hours of task order award. Would the Government please clarify whether offerors should include a sample mobilization plan with its IDIQ proposal? And if so, where should it be included? Requirement revised in updated PWS 0001 Closed

Q3

The solicitation notice on SAM.gov states that questions are due by

10:00 AM CT on February 3. However, the Executive Summary in solicitation document W519TC24R0011.pdf, Item A-6 states that

"Questions or comments must be submitted NLT 24 days prior to the

RFP closing date." Would the Government please clarify when questions are due?

Corrected to state 03FEB2025. Consistent the SAM posting. 0001 Closed

Q4

Appendix A - Work Sample Cover Sheet has no interactive objects or renderable text, and cannot be filled out as the form does not allow for text to be entered into the form. Will the government please provide a revised cover sheet that allows offerors to type in the form? Updated 0001 Closed

Q5

Section L-3.3.1.4. specifies that "Work samples shall be provided in their original format; page numbers may be added." Would the government permit Offerors to add highlights and comments within each work sample to facilitate evaluation? For example, using Adobe, Offerors are able to highlight text and add comments to assist evaluators in locating information. Added language 0001 Closed

Q6

In RFP Att. 0002 Section L-3.2.2, Govt requires......"For any contracts......page count". This appears to be a hold over from an earlier draft RFP that imposed a more stringent page count than the current 45 pages. This requirements also appears to be duplicative of earlier requirements in L-3.2.2. Will the Government remove that entire sentence from the end of para L-3.2.2?

There is still a page count and we are stating that the additional information we asking for is excluded from any page count. No revision made. 0001 Closed

W519TC24R0011 - Global Protective Services (GPS) Industry Q&A - ALL

Controlled Unclassified Source Selection Sensitive Information

Q7

RFP Att. 0002 Section L-3.2.2 last sentence implies that adverse performance information is excluded form the 45-page limit for past performance. Will the Government confirm that any letters of concern, cure notices, show cause letters etc. (which can be voluminous) and any related corrective action discussion can be exempted from page count?

No revision made - I think the paragraph does communicate that the adverse PP documentation is excluded from the page count 0001 Closed

Q8

Are questions asked previously in response to the iterations of the draft RFP going to be answered separately or should offerors repose those questions that are still relevant?

Questions that have not been previously addressed should be reposed to the USG to respond to. 0001 Closed

Q9

RFP Attachment 0002 Section L-3.3.1.1 Work Sample Qualifications lays out the minimum qualifications for contracts to be cited as work samples under prior technical experience. Neither the RFP

Attachment 0006 Self-Scoring Matrix, nor the RFP Attachment 0014

Cross-Reference Matrix has columns or rows in which offerors can clearly identify that the cited work samples meet the requirements of L-

3.3.1.1.a-c. So, for example, there is nowhere in the submission for an offeror to clearly identify in one convenient place for the evaluators whether the cited contracts are USG, commercial, foreign government, or if they have at least six months of active performance.

Those requirements are not part of the self-scoring or cross-reference matrices. The Government also states that offerors shall not "create any new documentation, such as project narratives or project descriptions ." QUESTION: Can offerors assume that the Government can make those determinations by reviewing the work sample substantiating documentation (e.g. contract first pages with customer names and periods of performance), without the offeror having to address each item specifically? If not, how should offerors clearly identify that each work sample meets those basic requirements of L-

3.3.1.1 a-c?

Added language to Section L and the Solicitation to have the KTRs add the information to the PART III

Description box of the Cover Sheet. 0001 Closed

Q10

For those work samples being used to satisfy multiple requirements in the SSM/CRM, do offerors have to substantiate the period of performance, duration, OCONUS location etc. each time they are cited? Added clarification to the Solicitation narrative. 0001 Closed

Q11

Some contract documents contain the required information (e.g.

customer, dollar value, period of performance) in the first few pages of what can be a very long document. To reduce file size and ease upload into PIEE, can offerors remove superfluous materials from the back of long contract docs?

Added additional language to Section L and the

Solicitation to address this. 0001 Closed

Q13

The order of the questions in the SSM and the CRM is different, making it more challenging to cross-reference and to evaluate. The

CRM lists all the questions in the logical order in L-3.3.5, whereas the

SSM order is not sequential (e.g. L-3.3.5.2 requirements are interspersed with other questions); the SSM questions appear to be ordered by score weighting. To ease the cross-referencing for the evaluators, will the Government consider re-ordering the SSM or CRM to align the questions in the same order in both documents? Clarification added to the Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q14

RFP Section A-6 states: "Questions or comments must be submitted

NLT 24 days prior to the RFP closing date. " That conflicts with the instructions on SAM that questions are due on 2/3/25 - only 11 days ahead of the submission date. Will the Government clarify the deadline for submission of questions? Clarification added to the Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q15

Contractors do not have access to many referenced materials in the

PWS. Will all referenced regulations, policies, requirements, manuals, publications, directives, OP ORDs, medical directives, language requirements, and FRAGOs for each COCOM be provided? Nothing additional added to the Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q16

Section 2.5 Biometric Collection states "It is incumbent upon the

Contractor to submit the request for biometric enrollment as quickly as possible to minimize delays in the arming authorization process". Can a time period for USG's part of the processing be noted here too? Nothing additional added to the Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q17

PWS Section 2.7.2 states "If an employee knows or should know that their weapon is not in the proper working condition, the employee shall immediately report to their Security Guard Supervisor or the

Contractor's appropriate chain of command for repair and/or approved replacement". Please define what "should know" means in this context.

Pseudo definintion of "should know" added to the

PWS 0001 Closed

Q18

PWS Section 6.3.2.3 notes the possible requirement for boat patrols.

Under what circumstances would boat patrols be required? Who is responsible for providing the boats? What are the requirements for the boats? Added clarification to PWS and Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q19

PWS Section 8.3 states that "Where Contractors have access to crew-served weapons, training and qualification shall be conducted by the

Contractor". On previous similar contracts, crew-served weapons training was provided by the USG, as they provided the weapons and ammunition. Please clarify/confirm who is to provide this training. Added clarification to PWS and Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q20

M-2 refers in the narrative to a five-step process for evaluating proposals, yet the graphic below the narrative appears to show six steps, including award. Only two steps are then articulated in Sections

M-2.1 and M-2.3. Will the Government please clarify the process and the steps for evaluating submitted proposal materials? Table removed 0001 Closed

Q21

The table on page 6 of Section L Attachment 2 instructions list the

CRM as L-3.3.5, but in the narrative below, it is listed as L-3.3.6. L-

3.3.5 and L-3.3.6 appear to be effectively referring to the same thing -how to assemble the CRM to aid Government evaluation. Suggest combining the two Sections into one section L-3.3.5.

Updated Section L to include the Cross-Reference

Matrix as paragraph L-3.3.5.6, effectively combining the paragraphs as suggested. 0001 Closed

Q22

RFP Attachment 0002 Section L-3.3.1.3 identifies the types of documents offerors can use to substantiate their scores in the self-scoring matrix. The last two sentences of that para state:

"Subcontractor proprietary information may be redacted. The redacted work sample must stand on its own to be verified against the

Self-Scoring matrix. " This implies that only subcontractor work samples can be redacted. Since some prime contracts, particularly in the commercial security arena, are very sensitive, will the Government allow offerors to redact certain aspects of the prime contract substantiating documentation (e.g. the name of the customer), both in the substantiating documentation, as long as that documentation still substantiates the self-scoring? Added 0001 Closed

Q23

The RFP Attachment 014 CRM has one row in the spreadsheet for each question. In the case of a question that requires multiple data points and contract citations to substantiate the self-score (up to 20 work samples in some cases), will the Government allow offerors to divide the rows into separate subordinate rows within the Government issued CRM template, in order to facilitate evaluation? Clarification added to the Solicitation 0001 Closed

Q24

PWS 5.2.5 states In-Transit Visibility (ITV) is a requirement for contingency environments. Can the Government confirm what it considers a "contingency environment" in this context? Will the USG provide ITV equipment for contractors or provide a list of approved

ITV accepted equipment?

A Contingency environment would be any area that is within a Contingency Operation Per DoDI 3020.50 a

Contingency operation " Pursuant to Section

101(a)(13)(a) of Title 10, United States Code, a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of

Defense as a contingency operation, or that becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law in accordance with Section 101(a)(13)(b) of Title 10, United States Code." - Added to AMD 0002 and PWS. 0002 Closed

Q25

Attachment 11, DD254, block 13, paragraph 2, states, "The

Contractor shall have and maintain a U.S. TOP SECRET facilities clearance". This contradicts what is listed in solicitation paragraph A-

7.2 and PWS paragraph 2.3. Can the Government confirm if a TOP

SECRET or SECRET FCL is required for the MAIDIQ contract award?

TOP Secret FCL is not required at the Base level. Only a Secret FCL - Updated in AMD 0002 and Attachment

0011 DD254 0002 Closed

Q26

Will all GPS operating locations be afforded Status of Forces

Agreement (SOFA) status where those agreements have been established?

Depends on the designation of CAAF v Non-CAAF status which can't be known at this time. 0002 Closed

Q27

PWS 5.2.2.c. states, "All-terrain flat-free steel-belted radial tires".

Does the Government intend for all contractor furnished NTV's to have "run flat" tires, or something similar?

See updated PWS - Clarification added to AMD 0002 and removed from PWS 0002 Closed

Q28

PWS 5.5 states the contractor shall provide body armor with SAPI inserts. Can the USG confirm what level of protection and/or NIJ certification(s) are required for these items?

This will be determined at the TO level - No changes made; this is clearly communicated in the PWS 0002 Closed

Q29

PWS 6.6.2.8.C states, "Military experience with honorable discharge or four (4) years of equivalent police experience or four (4) years of equivalent private security experience". Can the Government further define what it considers as acceptable private security experience?

Security Guard or Officer Experience: Working as a security guard or officer for a private security company, providing services such as access control, patrol, and response to incidents.

Loss Prevention or Asset Protection Experience:

Working in a retail or commercial setting to prevent and investigate theft, vandalism, and other forms of property loss.

Executive Protection or Bodyguard Experience:

Providing personal protection services for high-profile individuals, such as executives, celebrities, or government officials.

Investigations Experience: Conducting investigations into incidents such as theft, fraud, or other forms of misconduct, either as a private investigator or as part of a security team.

Security Consulting Experience: Providing advice and guidance to organizations on security-related matters, such as risk assessments, security protocols, and emergency response planning.

Alarm Response or Monitoring Experience: Working in a central station or monitoring center, responding to alarm activations and coordinating responses with law enforcement or other emergency services. Private

Investigation Experience: Conducting investigations into civil or criminal matters, such as infidelity, worker's compensation claims, or background checks. Security

Management Experience: Overseeing security operations, including supervising security personnel, 0002 Closed

Q30

PWS 6.6.7.C states, Four (4) years Military experience. Guard may substitute experience as a contract security guard in a contingency area for two (2) of the total four (4) years' experience." Would the

Government be willing to change four (4) years of military experience to two (2) years of military experience? Would the Government accept law enforcement experience?

If reference is to Section 6.6.2.7 please see updated

PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS 0002 Closed

Q31

PWS 6.6.2.12 Mobile Guard "Medic" does not identify which nationality personnel are acceptable. Does the Government intend for this labor category to be staffed with U.S. EXPATs with NREMT EMT certifications, or can these positions be filled by FVEY/NATO, LN, or

OCNs with equivalent international EMT certifications?

This will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in

AMD 0002 and PWS 0002 Closed

Q32

PWS 6.8.2 states, "Guard may substitute experience as a contract security guard in a contingency area for (2) of the total six (6) years experience". Can the Government define what it considers as acceptable contingency area experience?

A Contingency area would be any area that is within a

Contingency Operation Per DoDI 3020.50 a

Contingency operation " Pursuant to Section

101(a)(13)(a) of Title 10, United States Code, a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of

Defense as a contingency operation, or that becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law in accordance with Section 101(a)(13)(b) of Title 10, United States Code." - Updated in AMD 0002 and

PWS 0002 Closed

Q33

PWS 6.9.1 states, "Guard may substitute experience as a contract security guard in a contingency area for (2) of the total six (6) years experience". Can the Government define what it considers as acceptable contingency area experience?

A Contingency area would be any area that is within a

Contingency Operation Per DoDI 3020.50 a

Contingency operation " Pursuant to Section

101(a)(13)(a) of Title 10, United States Code, a military operation that is designated by the Secretary of

Defense as a contingency operation, or that becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law in accordance with Section 101(a)(13)(b) of Title 10, United States Code." - Updated in AMD 0002 and

PWS 0002 Closed

Q34

PWS 7.6 provides a detailed list of tasks, duties, and function performed by the Kennel Master. Can the Government confirm contractors will be provided explosives storage areas, magazines, and other explosives safety equipment as Government Furnished

Equipment?

No, the USG can't confirm that GFE will be available, this will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in

AMD 0002 and PWS 0002 Closed

Q35

PWS 7.6 provides a detailed list of tasks, duties, and function performed by the Kennel Master. Will the Government provide dedicated facilities, infrastructure, and secure area(s) to establish kennel facilities?

Possibly, this will be determined at the TO level. -

Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS 0002 Closed

Q36

PWS 7.6 does not list any details regarding receipt of explosive materials by the USG at each OCONUS operating location. Can the

Government confirm it will receive and accept explosive shipments in support of contractor CWD teams?

The USG may not be on the ground for all TO's. This will be determined at the TO level. - Updated in AMD

0002 and PWS. 0002 Closed

Q37

PWS 8.4 states firearms instructors must be properly credentialed and accredited by various civilian law enforcement, military or nationally recognized firearms safety and training organizations. This section also states, "or equivalent". Does the Government accept contractor provided firearms instructor certifications for this requirement?

Yes, as long as the Contractor can provide support that it is equivalent to the listed certifying bodies. -

Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. 0002 Closed

Q38

PWS 9.2 Mobilization states, "The contractor is responsible for mobilizing all personnel. For U.S. citizens mobilization includes travel to the Government approved CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) from an individuals home of record before deployment to location of base defined at TO award". CRC does not support the LEWTC weapons qualification and many contractors arrive at CRC with all required medical/dental processing complete. Further, some contractors are not issued any equipment while attending CRC. This could result in significant cost savings to the USG if authorized for task orders where all requirements are met without processing through CRC.

Will the Government consider removing this requirement for certain task orders, where contractors are capable of completing predeployment tasks without mobilization to CRC?

Please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and

PWS. 0002 Closed

Q39

PWS 9.2 further states, "CRC cannot be conducted in Contractor owned and/or operated facilities unless waived, or unless another agency's policies and procedures prescribe a different requirement".

Can the Government waive CRC requirements for GPS task orders where contractors mobilization and training processes fully satisfy all mandatory mobilization tasks?

Possibly, this will be determined at the TO level. -

Updated in AMD 0002 and PWS. 0002 Closed

Q40

PWS 9.2.2 states, "The contractor shall ensure all deploying contracted personnel, before entering Host Nation, have been issued contractor provided protective gear, helmet, gas mask, and any other personal protective equipment required at the time of deployment".

Will the Government change this to be determined at the task order level?

Please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and

PWS. 0002 Closed

Q41

PWS 6.1.7 states, "The contractor shall be responsible for monitoring and maintain security equipment such as surveillance cameras, alarms, access control systems ensuring operability, this is to include security systems provided by the government." Is the contractor expected to provide full maintenance and replacement of Government-provided equipment?

Please see updated PWS - Updated in AMD 0002 and

PWS. 0002 Closed

Q42

Reference Appendix A to Section L, according to the instructions the

"Contractor Name" is to be the name of "this work sample". Will the

Government confirm whether it is the name of the work sample that is required or, as indicated, the "Contractor Name"?

Instructions state "Offerors shall enter the Contractor's

Name of this work sample." If you're not the Prime, this could be someone other than your company - No change made. N/A Closed

Q43

Reference Appendix A to Section L, in the "Customer" box, offerors are required to include the "office symbol". Will the Government clarify what that means?

Please see updated instructions - Office Symbol language removed. 0003 Closed

Q44

Reference Appendix A to Section L, in the "Primary scope of work" box, the offeror is required to "enter one or more of the following PTE sections", but nothing follows. Will the Government clarify what is required in this box?

Please see updated instructions - Updated language to state, as referenced in the Self-Scoring Matrix 0003 Closed

Q45

Reference Appendix A to Section L, the file is in Times New Roman font. Since this is a Government template, will the Government confirm that this form is exempt from the Arial font requirements mandated in Section L-2.7.1?

Please see updated form. Language added to Section

L and AMD 0003 exempting the Arial/10-12pt font requirement FOR APPENDIX A WORK SAMPLE

COVER SHEET ONLY. 0003 Closed

Q46

In Amendment 001 on 29 Jan 25, RFP L-3.3.1.1 was updated to include adding considerable information into the Part III of the work sample cover sheet (Appendix A). Part III of the cover sheet template has a 500-character limit. Will the Government increase the character limit in Part III of the cover sheet template to allow offerors to include this additional information?

This should be a brief discription, of the topics in PART

III, the USG feels that character limit will suffice. No change made. 500 characters should be enough. 0003 Closed

Q47

Amendment 001 Section M-2.1 reintroduces the PPI sheet. Will the

Government reconfirm that the PPI is no longer part of the offeror submission or the Government evaluation?

PPI's are Not required, please see updated Section M-

2.1 - Attachment 0003 - Section M, Paragraph M-2.1 revised to remove any reference to a PPI. 0003 Closed

Q48

In the Amendment 001 revised RFP A-6, there is a note that: "Any questions or comments previously directed to the Government that have not been addressed to the Offeror's satisfaction shall be reposed to the Government.....". It would greatly assist all offerors were the

Government to answer individual questions using this matrix, since changes to the RFP documents are being made without any notation, making it very difficult to assess whether and how the Government is responding to offeror questions. Will the Government please answer questions in the USG Response Column E of this question matrix? Understood - Q&As posted to SAM.gov 0003 Closed

Q49

"Amendment 0001 RFP SF30 Section 1.d.i adds to the Section L

General Instructions: ""Offerors shall submit two (2) copies of their proposal; one copy shall be redacted to remove the Offeror's name and/or company-identifying information. The second copy shall be unredacted."" QUESTION: Will the Government confirm that this is a requirement, since it does not actually appear in the amended Section

L General Instructions?"

Please see updated section L - Redaction requirement removed from Section L and noted again in AMD

0003. 0003 Closed

Q50

Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: The requirement to redact a copy of this proposal seems to hamper the evaluation - if all the work sample documentation has to be redacted of the offeror name, how does the Government plan on substantiating that any of the cited PTE work samples were performed by the offeror?

This is to facilitate the easy of the Source Selection, offerors redacted proposals will be categorized as

Offer A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 - Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission. 0003 Closed

Q51

Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: PIEE does not make provision for two submittals, so all the redacted proposal documents will be submitted under the same PIEE Proposal Manager account, so will be easily identified as belonging to a particular offeror.

How does the Government plan on ensuring that redacted proposal documentation remains truly anonymous under these circumstances?

This information will not be made avaliable to the

Source Selection Authority. - Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission 0003 Closed

Q52

Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions: Proposal documentation, including business files, past performance and PTE work sample documentation could run to more than 120 files, if an offeror were to present the full 60 work samples. If the entire proposal were to be redacted, that could mean 240 lengthy documents (plus business files and past performance) per offeror. Can PIEE accommodate an entire set of additional files, running into hundreds of megabytes and thousands of pages of contract documentation?

Are there any upload restrictions on the PIEE system?

According to the DoD Procurement Toolbox information regarding the PIEE Solicitation Module, the size limit for each uploaded attachment is 1.9 gigabytes (GB). - Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission 0003 Closed

Q53

Reference SF30 Amendment 0001 redaction instructions:

Understanding that redacted proposals help to eliminate potential bias in evaluation, the need for redaction in this particular case seems unwarranted. As stated in M-1.1.1, contracts will be awarded to all offerors who receive a favorable suitability determination and who meet the MTTR in the prior technical experience. That MTTR score has to be demonstrated in black and white through the work sample determination. Therefore the opportunity to unwittingly favor one offeror over another is absent, meaning that redaction serves little purpose, other than to vastly increase the number of files the

Government has to review and manage, while making it harder for evaluators to judge compliance or verify scores in the self-scoring matrix. In light of these factors, we strongly suggest that the

Government reconsider the requirement for proposals to be redacted.

Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in

AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission. 0003 Closed

Q54

The requirement in RFP Attachment 0002 L-3.3.5.4.a requires offerors to show the number of "armed security contracts....with at least 2 separate OCONUS geographic locations...." But the corresponding question in the SSM asks offerors to demonstrate the

"number of armed contracts.....at OCONUS geographic locations providing PSD or PSS", removing the requirement to show 2 separate questions. The corresponding question in the CRM also removes the requirement to show 2 separate locations. The two matrices are therefore out of synch with Section L-3.3.5.4. Will the Government please clarify which question they wish answered and amend either

Section L or the SSM/CRM matrices accordingly?

Section L. Paragraph L-3.3.5.4(a) has been revised to be consistent with the SSM and CRM. 0003 Closed

Q55

A-7.10 notes that prior to evaluation of other factors, that the USG will evaluate compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, 2022 or ISO

18788. The Instructions don't explicitly state how Offeror's shall provide this detail to the USG. Can the USG please confirm what documentation should be provided to prove currency with ANSI/ASIS

PSC.1 and where that should be provided in Offeror response?

Attachment L-3.3.3 states ANSI/ASIS PSC.1

2012/2022/ISO 18788 Audit Reports: Offerors shall provide documentation evidencing the number of passed ANSI/ASIS PSC.1 Audits (2012 or 2022)/ISO

18788 Audits in the past 6 years prior to the date of proposal. - No change made, pertinent information is in Attachment 0002. 0003 Closed

Q56

Attachment 7 CDRLs list notes a requirement to provide a list of locations where they currently have armed and unarmed security contracts - and this is noted as "HN Business License" - can the USG confirm whether they want 1) a list of locaitons, 2) copies of current, valid licenses, or 3) locations with copies of current, valid licenses?

Will the USG please confirm where this list or licenses copies should be supplied in Offeror response?

Please see updated CDRL Matrix - Added to AMD

0003 and changed on Attachment 0007 CDRL Matrix. 0003 Closed

Q57

A DD-254 submittal is requested with the IDIQ award - will the USG confirm that this DD-254 submittal meets the requirement for confirmation of security clearance in A-7.10 and L.2.6.2? Clarification added to AMD 0003 0003 Closed

Q58

A DD-254 submittal is requested with the IDIQ award - will the USG confirm that offeror may remove the "TBD" content in the provided DD-

254 for completion? If Offerors have more than 1 Subcontractor, can the USG please confirm how they'd like Offerors to provide

Subcontractor data on the DD-254 is the form does not allow Offerors to add a row?

Subsent DD Forms 254 should be completed fo each

1st tier subcontractor. Clarification added to AMD

0003. 0003 Closed

Q59

Row 20 of the CRM notes the following: "Number of personnel on

Armed Security Contracts/Task Orders who received OCONUS contractor-provided housing and life support in any 36-month period in the past last 7 years." Can the USG confirm whether this is any 36 months of a contract, or should support 36 continuous months of support?

Looking for a continuous 36 month period - Updated

SSM and CRM. 0003 Closed

Q60

Rows 19-27 are hidden on the Self-Scoring Matrix and do not appear to correlate to scoring roll-ups. Will the USG confirm whether these rows should be included in Offeror scoring matrix? And if so, would the USG please provide an updated scoring matrix for all Offeror's with updates formulas?

Please see updated Self Scoring Matrix. -

Unnecessary rows removed. 0003 Closed

Q61

Work Sample appendix does not appear to be fillable and the RFP asks that Offeror's not adapt USG-provided files. Can the USG please confirm that Offeror's may convert the work sample file to word in order to complete? Or will the USG please provide a fillable document? Corrected in previous AMD 0003 Closed

Q62

Amendment 0001 updated Section L-3.3.5.2(b) to remove the reference to 2 or greater locations but the same edit was not made to the CRM - will the USG please provide a revised CRM to meet

Section L requirements? Please see updated Matrix - SSM & CRM updated 0003 Closed

Q63

Amendment 0001 provided an Attachment 8 that does not appear able to be opened. Will the USG please provide a revised version of

Attachment 8 for Offerors? Please see updated - Updated in AMD 0001 0003 Closed

Q64

Amendment 0001 RFP provides a synopsis of the Amended files and notes an edit to Section L that does not exist in Section L. Namely the provision of two copies of the proposal. One to be redacted. Will the

USG kindly advise how Offeror's are to provide a compliant proposal that would detail Prime ownership of contract without the name of the

Prime?

This is to facilitate the easy of the Source Selection, offerors redacted proposals will be categorized as

Offer A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 - This was corrected in AMD

0002 and further revised in AMD 0003; there is no longer a requirement for a redacted copy of proposals.

Only one (1) copy of the proposal is required. 0003 Closed

Q65

The sheer volume of data that will be required to be redacted in order to remove company names across many work samples and ancillary files and volume documents is a new requirement in Amendment

0001. This is a time consuming process, and if the requirement stands, will need additional bid time to develop. We respectfully request a 2 week extension to the proposal response deadline to support this new requirement.

Redaction requirement has been lifted. This is noted in

AMD 0003 along with the requirement for one (1) proposal submission. 0003 Closed

PWS Section 1.6 (p9, third sentence) refers to a Section 1.10 in the context of centralized and decentralized ordering. There is no Section

1.10. Updated in AMD 0003 and the PWS 0003 Closed

PWS Section 7.4.1 refers to an Attchment 09 "Explosives Detection

Canine Assessment and Certification Standards". Both the original

RFP and Amendment 001 show Attachment 09 as ' Registration

Instructions for PIEE'. Please provide EDC Assessment and

Certifications Standards. Updated in Attachment 0008 and AMD 0003 0003 Closed

PWS Sections 7.8.2.1 and 7.8.2.5 convey slightly different experience requirements for canine handlers. Section 7.8.2.1 requires two years' experience in both dual purpose and single purpose canines; Section

7.8.2.5 provides a requirement of "a minimum of one year of experience as a narcotics or explosive detection canine handler.

Please clarify. Addressed in AMD 0002 0002 Closed