The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Questions and Answers M67854-13-R-4953
May 1, 2013
| Q# |
| RFP Section |
| Comment/Question |
| Answer |
| 1 |
| PWS 7.2.7 System Qualification Testing; and |
Attachment 6 Pricing Summary
| PWS Paragraph 7.2.7 indicates that the System Qualification Test will be executed for the first two deployments in the field. The Pricing Summary indicates that the SQT is to be priced as part of Delivery Order 1, CERS DAR initial design. Please confirm that only one Test Readiness Review and System Qualification Test are to be priced in Delivery Order 1. |
| Offerors shall price two SQTs and one TRR. |
| 2 |
| Solicitation M67854-13-R-4953, pages 60 and 61 of 70, Instructions for Preparation of Proposal, Part I, Section 2, Item 3; and |
Part I, Section 1, Item 1; and
PWS 1.2, Scope
Within the instructions for Part I, Section 2, Sustainment Approach, vendors are directed to describe how the proposed approach satisfies the CERS 911 and CERS DAR integration requirement.
Given this instruction, what type of information is the Government looking for here that would be in addition to that requested in Section 1 Technical Approach, Item 1? Does this instruction refer to section 8.3 of the PWS?
Yes. As well as PWS 1.2 objective of maintaining the operations of the E911 system as part of CERS DAR.
| 3 |
| PWS section 1.2 |
| In PWS section 1.2 it states: CERS E911 is not within scope of this PWS and information is provided for reference purposes only. In PWS section 8.3, it states: The term “operation and maintenance practices” shall include all commercial and Government specific manuals and documentation required to properly maintain, administrate, use and manage all system equipment and software during the warranty period as well as CERS E911 for continued sustainment. We understand the 8.3 reference to CERS E911 to mean only the provision of documentation to support the CERS DAR interface to CERS E911; please confirm this understanding or advise the intent. |
| The intent is for the DAR Offeror to begin to sustain the E911 system as part of CERS. The E911 data required for maintenance will be provided to the Offeror after contract award. |
| 4 |
| Attachment 7 Contract Work Breakdown Structure |
| For WBS 4.2 E911 Services – We understand this to be maintenance for the CERS DAR interface to CERS E911, as specified in PWS section 8 Maintenance; please confirm this understanding or advise which PWS paragraphs apply to WBS 4.2. |
| See answer to Q#3. |
| 5 |
| PWS 6.2, Integration and Cutover and PWS, Appendix A, Document Deliverable Schedule, A0036, Draft Cutover Plan |
| Please confirm that the Draft Cutover Plan, A0036, is due 30 days prior to the Non-Developmental Item Integration Review (NIR). PWS 6.2 does not specify the number of days prior to NIR for this deliverable while Appendix A specifies 30 days. |
| The Draft Cutover Plan, A0036 is due 30 days prior to NIR. |
| CLIN 0002 (Option) states “deploy a CERS DAR for any of the sites”. How shall bidders account for site differences that drive different hardware and implementation requirements? Or shall this CLIN be priced for a single installation based on the Camp Hard Corps description? |
| The Offeror shall propose the cost for representative base Camp Hard Corps. The cost differences for each installation will be identified, proposed, and negotiated as part of each individual Delivery Order. |
Page 4; Attachment 1
PWS Section 5, page 15
| · CLIN 0004 (Option) requires pricing for Information Assurance (IA) in accordance with PWS Section 5. IA is also covered by Sub-CLIN 0001AN, which includes IA deliverables from PWS Section 5. Shall bidders include duplicate costs in both CLIN 0004 and Sub-CLIN 0001AN? |
| This CLIN is to allow for the IA support necessary to continue to support CERS after the initial deployment of the system. This option is necessary for post-deployment IA support and the government desires to know that the Offeror’s have the capability to maintain their IA support for CERS. |
Attachment_6_-_Pricing_Summary; Attachment 1
PWS Appendix A, pages 40-43
| Pricing Spreadsheet under the description System Qualification Test, sub-CLIN 0001AL, has deliverables A0062, A0063 included and under description Physical Configuration Audit, sub-CLIN 0001AM, has deliverable A0064 included. In the PWS and Appendix A, they are listed as B0062, B0063, and B0064. Please confirm these Deliverables should be A0062, A0063 and A0064. |
| Deliverables should be B0062, B0063, B0064. One will be required for each of the two SQT events. |
Pages 5 and 64; Attachment_6_-_Pricing_Summary
| CLIN 0005 (Option) states “Place holder CLIN for Delivery Orders”. Please confirm if this CLIN should be priced and how it should be structured. Attachment 6 - Pricing Summary does not include CLINs 0003 – 0005 in the template. |
| No, this should not be priced. |
| 10 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Page 62, Part II: Past Performance Information (PPI) |
| For the offeror’s past performance references, should the reference be cited at the IDIQ level, or at the more relevant task order level? |
| Please reference any relevant past performance. |
| 11 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Page 64 and CERS_DAR_CWBS_Template |
| These two documents direct the bidder to provide a proposed schedule for delivery of CERS DAR to installations, outlined in Section 11.10.2 of the PWS. Section 11.10.2 does not exist. Can the Government please clarify their direction here? |
| The RFP was updated in a previous amendment to remove the reference to PWS Section 11.10.2. The CWBS has been updated. |
| 12 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Amend 4 Q/A #1, page 1 |
| The use of Camp Hard Corps to set standard pricing does not allow for hardware and software changes during the multi-year implementation period. How will the government allow for obsolescence, improvements and new products, such as new workstations and laptops? |
| Post-deployment sustainability (included product replacement due to obsolescence) is a requirement of the PWS; the Offeror must propose how they intend to manage sustainability to their proposed systems. |
| 13 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Amend 4 Q/A #2, page 1 |
| Please provide excel spreadsheet. |
| The excel spreadsheet has been posted. |
| 14 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Amend 4 Q/A #19 and #31, pages 4 and 6 |
| Answer #31 states that only interfaces identified in the Hard Corps description are required, which appears to contradict the answer to question 19 that states the offeror should identify non-specific hardware and software in their response. Please clarify. |
| If the offeror is proposing additional hardware and software NOT identified by the Government, it MUST be identified and priced in the Offeror’s proposal. |
| 15 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Amend 4 Q/A #65, page 11 |
| Because the requirements for edge devices is not specified for each base, the Vendor assumes that these devices should not be included in the response and will be reimbursed on a task order by task order basis. Is this acceptable to the Marine Corps? |
| That is correct. |
| 16 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Amend 4 Pricing Summary, Attachment 6 |
| 1) Please explain what should be priced within CLINs 0003AA and 0003AB. PWS elements 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 & 8.5 are already included in CLINS 0001 and 0002. |
2) Please confirm that CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0007 are not to be priced separately, since these CLINs are not included on the Pricing Summary attachment. If they are to be priced, please provide guidance.
CLIN 0006 includes PWS element 7.2, but only includes the A0068 deliverable for FUE. Please confirm what testing activity is to be included in this CLIN. PWS Section 7.2 includes FVT, FCA, PAT, SQT, PCA, and SA in addition to FUE. These other activities are also included in CLINs 0001 and 0002.
CLIN 0003AA should price the Offeror’s extended warranty after the two-year warranty from CLIN 0002 expires.
CLIN 0003AB should price the Offeror’s sustainment of the E911 system.
CLIN 0006 should price the Offeror’s support to the Field User Evaluation; the price of the system tests should be included in CLIN0001 and CLIN0002.
| 17 |
| Amend 4 PWS, Section 10.2, Page 36 |
Bullets 3, 4 and 5 all seem to be items that would be provided at Government facilities and thus should not be included in a GFE list. As such, these items do not seem appropriate to include in a GFE Accountability Report (deliverable).
The GFE Accountability Report is required for any equipment that is released from the Government to the Offeror, i.e., the test articles.
| 18 |
| M67854-13-R-4953, Amend 4 and 5 |
| To allow time for response to these questions, and to allow for the government’s availability to receive proposals (currently due at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday), an extension to 4:00 Wednesday May 15 is requested. |
The due date/time is not extended. Government personnel identified in the RFP will be available to receive proposals.
| 19 |
| Q&A M67854-13-R-4953l, Question #2 |
| The answer to Question #2 states “An Excel Pricing Template has been posted.” The file ‘CERS_Pricing_Summary_Attachment_6(2)’ posted on FedBizOps is a WORD document. Can you please provide in Excel format? |
| See answer to Q#13. |
| 20 |
| Section SF 1449 and File ‘CERS_Pricing_Summary_Attachment_6(2)’ |
| The SF 1449 includes Item Numbers 0001 through 0007, but the Pricing Summary (Attachment 6) only includes Item Numbers 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0006. Can you please provide an updated Pricing Template in Excel format that includes the missing Item Numbers 0004, 0005, and 0007? Per the page 68 of the conformed RFP, “Pricing is required for any Option CLINs.” |
| Pricing is required per the pricing summary. |
| 21 |
| Q&A M67854-13-R-4953l, Question #115, |
Section SF 1449, and File ‘CERS_Pricing_Summary_Attachment_6(2)’
| The response to Question #115 states that Item Number 0003 is to be priced as a total of three (3) one-year warranty option periods. The Pricing Summary (Attachment 6) includes Item Numbers 0003AA (System Warranty) and 0003AB (System Support Services) both for a quantity of one (1). Is the price to be included on the SF 1449 for Item Number 0003 to include Item Number 0003AA times three (3) plus Item Number 0003AB? |
| See answer to Q #16. |
| 22 |
| M67854-13-R-4953_Conformed_thru_Amendment_0003, Pages 65 and 70 |
| Page 65 states “Section 4. Section 508 Deliverable Requirements. The Government has determined Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d) to be relevant to this requirement. Offerors shall provide as part of its proposal the Government Product/Service Accessibility Template (GPAT), which is attached to this RFP as Attachment 3. Offerors may use the GSA Buy Accessible Wizard at http://www.buyaccessible.gov/ to assist with preparation of the GPAT document. |
However, page 70 it states, “Additionally, the amendment requires that the vendor submit evidence of product accessibility features by providing a VPAT along with proposal response or by completing the GPAT."
Question: Is either a GPAT or a vendor VPAT acceptable as a response?
The RFP has been updated.
| 23 |
| Q&A M67854-13-R-4953l, Question #82 |
CERS_RFP_Camp_HardCorps_v3_Attachment_5, Page 3
| The answer to Question #82 appears to contradict with the requirement in Attachment 5: "The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) located in the PMO building has a remote E911 and requires a CAD workstation that is capable of dispatching assets." Please clarify. |
| The Government assumed Q#82 was specifically about a direct interface from the CAD to a common operational picture in the EOC. This capability is NOT required. The remote dispatch workstation identified in Camp Hard Corps’ EOC was placed in the EOC for example purposes and is not required to interface to the EOC common operational picture software application. Remote dispatch locations may be required in any remote location not necessarily the EOC. |
| 24 |
| File ‘CERS_Pricing_Summary_Attachment_6(2)’ |
| Under CLIN 0002, Base Deployment, Deliverable B0074 is listed in two (2) places; under “Design” and “Two (2) Year Warranty”. Please confirm if Deliverable B0074 should be listed under “Design” only, or included in both areas as shown. |
| Deliverable B0074 should be provided with CLIN0002 Design. |
Amendment 5 Conformed Solicitation document, and
Attachment 6 Pricing Requirement Summary from Amendment 4 (U0003)
| Q&A #115 indicates the CLIN003 option as “Three (3) one-year warranty option periods” and the conformed solicitation indicates CLIN0003 option as “SYSTEM WARRANTY AND SUPPORT SERVICES…to include three one year warranty options”…, however Attachment 6 indicates CLIN0003AA, 12 Months…, System Warranty, Quantity 1 and CLIN0003AB, 12 Months…, System Support Services, Quantity 1. Is it permissible to add rows to the spreadsheet for the other two years ? |
| Option CLIN 0003 of the ID/IQ allows the Government to order up to three one-year warranty periods. For the purposes of this RFP, offerors shall price the first 12 months of system warranty and support services. |
| 26 |
| Q&A #202, and RTM |
| QA #202 indicates “The LE RMS should include an enterprise capability that would allow an installation to query all USMC records”, however, we were not able to identify that requirement in the RTM; please advise if this is a required capability. |
| This is an objective requirement and not required to be a successful Offeror. |
| 27 |
| RE Q2: |
| The Government indicated it would provide an Excel version of the Pricing Summary document that is to be provided by the Offeror as a part of the proposal response. Please provide the Excel document in order to be completed. |
| See answer to Q#13. |
| In addition, the government has requested labor hours and rates as a part of the Pricing Summary document. However, there were no line items within the Government-provided MS Word document, “CERS_Pricing_Summery_Attachment_6.rtf “, for providing labor hours, categories, and rates as a part of the Offeror’s proposal. Will the Government provide a revised Pricing Summary Excel document to include the Offeror’s labor hours, categories, and rates as a part of its proposal? In addition, will the revised Pricing Summary Excel document include line items for pricing CLINS 4 & 5? In the event that no such document is provided, Offeror will submit such information in its own form and format. |
| The pricing summary document shall be filled out as provided. Offerors shall provide back-up pricing information per the RFP in Part IV, to include labor hours, categories, and rates, in the offeror’s format. |
| In the Amended RFP (page 6), it states the Signed SF 1449 is only allowed 2 pages. Do you want just the SF 1449 submitted or should we also be including a signed copy of SF 30? If we are to include the SF 30, should it only be the most recent amendment or do we need to sign and submit all amendments? |
| Offerors must acknowledge each amendment and include a signed copy. The RFP has been updated. |
03/28/2013