MCWS-L_H _Late Questions 10-21.pdf

Number Question Answer 1 Regarding the Supporting Documents (test reports, analysis, data, certifications, etc.) required as part of the proposal submission, and the answer to the question regarding document format (#88), can the government reconsider the format of these documents required for submission? Since many of the Supporting Documents are provided in PDF format and/or MS Excel format, etc. will the Government please consider accepting the supporting documentation in other than MS Word format, specifically PDF and/or MS Excel?

Supporting Documents may be provided in PDF and/or MS Excel. See Amendment 0012 for changes.

2 There are some question/answer numbers that are missing (e.g., there is no question/answer number 77, or 90). Also, some of our specific questions were not answered, however, a similar question was answered.

Has the Government answered all questions?

The skipping of numbers 77 and 90 was an administrative error. IAW the solicitation, the Government reserved the right to combine duplicate or similar questions for efficiency.

All questions have been answered.

3 In order for offerors to incorporate the requirement changes from the Answers to Questions and Amendment 0011, will the Government please consider extending the proposal due date a minimum of one (1) week beyond the current due date of 18 October 2022?

See Amendment 0013; the submission date has been extended to 25 October 2022.

4 The answer seems to be missing a word or the word ‘or’ was inserted by mistake. Will the Government please clarify?

The word “or” was a typographical error .

5 Many of the required attachments to volumes are not native MS Office files (i.e. PSPEC supporting documentation such as technical and training manuals).

Converting or embedding these files introduces risk to readability and substantially increases file size. Will the Government permit submission of attachments in pdf

Yes, see Amendment 0012 for changes.

6 Page 18, Data Item No. A018, (DI-MGMT-82190), Title of Data Item, “Technical Report – Study Service” is for a POA&M not a boundary diagram. Further it is for a

Block 4 of CDRL A018 is updated to “DI-MISC-80508B”.

cyber “Authorization Boundary Diagram”, and the DID is for a POA&M. Please provide correction.

7 Section M, A. System Performance; Question #6 Reference:

(a) Regarding the evaluation criteria and answer to question number 6 resulting in added language to Section M of the Solicitation.

(b) Per the answer to question number 6, which states, “The evaluation criteria is necessarily subjective, but the process allows for a fair comparison of proposals based on the criteria announced.”

(c) Answer to question number 6 further states, “An objective requirement provides more benefit to the Government than its associated threshold value. The Government will take into account all threshold and objective requirements the offeror credibly proposes to meet, and will select the solution that provides the best value using tradeoff procedures, as needed, to identify the best value offer.”

(d) “An ability that is deemed “beneficial to the Government” can be defined as an ability that provides the Government a benefit.”

Question:

The government states that the evaluation is “subjective” and that meeting an objective requirement is “beneficial to the Government”. Will the government please explain how they will perform a fair and equitable evaluation amongst all bidders based on Section M of the Solicitation?

Section M accurately states the Government's evaluation criteria, which will be applied in a fair and uniform manner.

8 In order for offerors to update their proposals to incorporate the requirement changes from the Answers to Questions and Amendment 0011, will the

See Amendment 0013; the submission date has been extended to 25 October 2022.

Government extend the proposal due one (1) week beyond the current due date of 18 October 2022 to 25 October 2022?

9 Reference: L-1.3.2.4.5 Electronic file naming convention / page 120: Table L-2, Section 2.1.3 Supporting Documents (test reports, analysis, data certifications) Question: Are ALL “Supporting Documents” required to be named per the referenced section L at proposal submission or can file names be specific to the product (e.g., Modems)?

“Supporting documents” file names may be specific to the product. The document titles in parentheses in Table L-2 Section 2.1.3 are merely samples of document types. The names listed (test reports, analysis, data, certifications) are examples of types of documents that could be submitted but are not all encompassing, nor are they restrictive or prescriptive with regard to the naming convention of the document. For example, an acceptable naming convention would be "Company-Modem Y Certification 0922.docx" or similar.