Attachment L-5 Solicitation Question and Answer Form 2.6.2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00019-19-R-0040
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for a PMA-281 Software and Hardware Development and Sustainment Multiple-Award IDIQ contract. The scope of work includes development, integration, test and evaluation, deployment, modifications, and operations/sustainment of hardware and software supporting ten PMA-281 programs ranging from ACAT-II to ACAT-IV and including AAP, Non-ACAT, and Pre-ACAT efforts. Delivery orders will be competed among awardees for specific program requirements. The solicitation clarifies that hard copy submissions are not required, ongoing projects cannot be used as relevant experience, and relevant experience evidence can come from corporate projects. It also addresses questions on proposal formatting and responses to evaluation criteria.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Question_Feedback Form
| PMA-281 IDIQ MAC |
| Solicitation No.: N00019-19-R-0040 |
| L-5 Solicitation Question and Answer Form |
| # | Question/Feedback | Government Response |
| 1 | Section L 5.1 states "The proposal shall include all proposal volumes on CD-ROM disk(s); a completed and original signed Standard Form 33; acknowledgement of all solicitation amendments, if applicable; and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors or Respondents (Section K of this solicitation) and other applicable fill-ins.". The specifically identified items (i.e. SF33, acknowledgement of amendments, section K) are already included in the proposal volume. Is this statement implying that hard copies are required? If hard copies are required, are digital signatures acceptable? | Digital signatures are acceptable and hard copies are not required. |
| 2 | Section L Table 2 states in Area 8.2 for Volume 1 to submit Section K Representations and Certifications. Section K does not contain all the standard Reps and Certs. Please clarify. Are we to submit only Section K? | This will be corrected in the forthcoming amendment. |
| 3 | Section L 9.1.2.2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT WITH ABILITY TO HANDLE AND PROTECT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION asks for evidence demonstrating the ability to handle and protect TS/SCI information. Our security personnel indicate that the evidence requested will not provide evidence for TS/SCI, only evidence of TS. SCI is similar to SAP in that it is accredited through the customer. Note also that the accreditation letters are often provided at the TS/SCI level, adding further challenges to providing this information at the unclassified or secret level. | The DD254 has been updated and will be forthcoming Amendment. |
| 4 | Section L 9.1.2.2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT WITH ABILITY TO HANDLE AND PROTECT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION asks for evidence demonstrating the ability to handle and protect TS/SCI information. Would it be acceptable to present an accreditation letter demonstrating protection and handling of information at TS/SAR? A SAPF accreditation letter reflects that the SAPF has been inspected and verified to meet the physical security requirements of the ICD 705, and based on that, that the area is approved for safeguarding up to the TS/SAR level. Since TS/SCI has the same physical security requirements (ICD 705) as TS/SAR is this sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 9.1.2.2? | The DD254 has been updated and will be forthcoming Amendment. |
| 5 | Section L 8.3 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 3) Terms and Conditions states: "If the Offeror takes any exceptions to the provisions of the solicitation and its applicable documents, the Offeror shall provide the following statement: 'All exceptions taken from this solicitation terms, conditions or requirements, including applicable documents, are included in this section'. Please clarify that along with this statement that the Offeror would also list those exceptions in this section. | Please see Section 8.3 TERMS AND CONDITIONS in the forthcoming Amendment. |
| 6 | In the Q&A file "L-5 Solicitation Question and Answer Form PART A (12.17.19).xlsx" question 50 asked "Does the Government intend to penalize Offerors beyond awarding zero points?" if an offeror fails to answer "Yes" to any critical question in Sec 9.1.2, which the RFP identifies as a deficiency. The response to the question was "No". Section M 2.0 states "A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award." Please clarify if answering "No" to any item in Section "9.1.2 Relevant Experience Projects - Critical Questions" will make an offer ineligible for award. | Yes. An Offeror who fails to answer "yes" to any critical question in Section 9.1.2 will be assessed a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award. |
| 7 | In the Draft RFP Section L 9.1.1 stated "Each project must be ongoing or have been completed within seven (7) years from the date proposals ...". The Final RFP Section L 9.1.1 states "Each project must have been completed within seven (7) years from the date proposals ...". Does this change mean that ongoing projects cannot be used for Relevant Experience Projects? If so, can you please provide a definition of "completed project" for cases such as a program that has added ECPs that continue work on the program after the completion/delivery of the original requirements on the program? | Yes, ongoing projects cannot be used for Relevant Experience Projects regardless if they are ECPs or not. |
| 8 | Section L 9.1.2.5 states "Unmanned Aerospace Systems C2 Standards Initiative (UCI)". UCI has been changed to "Universal Command and Control (C2) Interface (UCI)". | Corrected, in forthcoming amendment. |
| 9 | Section L 9.1.3.7 and 9.1.3.8 lists the following 6 options: "PMA-281 programs, Naval Air Systems Command Programs, Department of Navy Programs, Other Department of Defense Programs, Other U.S. Government Agencies, or Corporate Entities". Attachment L-1 for the same sections only lists the following 4 options: "Naval Air Systems Command Programs, Other Department of Defense Programs, Other U.S. Government Agencies, Corporate Entities". Should the three Navy options (PMA-281 programs, Naval Air Systems Command Programs, Department of Navy Programs) all be mapped to the Naval Air Systems Command Programs selection in Attachment L-1? | Section 9.1.3.7 and 9.1.3.8 will corrected in the forthcoming amendment. |
| 10 | For Section L 9.1.3.7 and the accompanying Attachment L-1 spreadsheet, if a program developed software for both the Navy and another Department of Defense organization can the Offeror select "Yes" for both the Naval Air Systems Command Programs and Other Department of Defense Programs? | For Section L 9.1.3.7, the Offeror will receive points for each relevant experience project provided up to 4 total. The Offeror may not receive double points for 1 project provided, Offeror can only reply "yes" one time per Project provided. |
| 11 | Typo - Section L, page 152 of 161, there are two sections marked 9.1.4.6. "9.1.4.6 ISO 9001 Certification" should be "9.1.4.8". | This has been corrected in the forthcoming amendment. |
| 12 | Section A Note 7 states "… up to a TOP SECRET (TS) / SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI) with a SECRET safeguarding capability." The DD-254 provided with the RFP states "FACILITY CLEARANCE REQUIRED TS/SCI" and "LEVEL OF SAFEGUARDING REQUIRED TS/SCI". Should Note 7 be updated to align with the DD-254? | This has been corrected in the forthcoming amendment. |
| 13 | Section L, Table 2, Page 136 of 161, item 10.3.1 for Page Limit indicates "Limited to the Worksheet". Section L, 10.3.1, paragraph 2 indicates "The Offeror shall also provide the software development of mix labor types/categories and percentages used to calculate the fully burdened labor rate (e.g. software engineer, systems engineer, project manager, contracting officer, etc.).". Since 10.3.1 is limited to the worksheet, where does the Government want the Contractor to provide this additional information requested in the instructions? Can the Contractor add a tab in the Excel worksheet to provide the labor mix breakdown? Or should this information be included in 10.3.2 Cost/Price Narrative? | All Cost pertaining to Section L, 10.3.1 should be provided in Attachment L-4 SLOC Spreadsheet. The Offeror shall provide a narrative, which identifies "additional costs" that would be incurred that have "not been identified" in the sample SLOC spreadsheet and described in detail the performance that would cause these costs. |
| 14 | Section L, 9.1.3.14 - Please define organically developed | Organically developed in this question refers to the software deleveoped by the Prime Contractor team. |
| 15 | Section L 2.1.7 says "There is no limit to the number of files that may be submitted. However, it is preferable that each volume, not be broken up into multiple electronic files.". Table 2 appears to contradict that statement by listing separate files for each of the volumes. For example, should the SF33 be included in the document in section 8.1, or should it be provided as a separate file as indicated in the table. | For the Proposal Volume 1, The Offeror should incorporate all Sections of 8 (8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, if applicable) into that folder. It is not recommend to provide separate folders - Volume 1 Section 8.1, Volume 1 Section 8.2 ect, Each Volume should contain all files pertaining to that Volume. |
The SF33 should be labeled and included in Volume 1.
Example:
FOLDER TITLE: PROPOSAL VOLUME 1 GENERAL
Within folder stated above, are the following:
ABC.VOL1.SF33.pdf ABC.VOL1.RC.pdf ABC.VOL1.OCI.pdf ABC.VOL1.ContractAdmin.pdf ABC.VOL1.SBSubPlan.pdf (If applicable) ABC.VOL1.JointVentures.pdf (If applicable) 16 Section L 9.1 states:
"If “Yes” is entered in Column D, the Offeror shall enter the file name(s) in Column G for each associated supporting document submitted. Reference the file naming structure provided in Section 3.0.".
Two paragraphs down it states:
"The Offeror must fill in Column G with the Project Identifier(s) that satisfies the claimed credit under Section 9.1 and in the Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet in addition to completing Column D."
| Should the second item above be for 9.1.2 Critical Questions since 9.1.3 questions are answered per project and 9.1.4 are answered at the corporation level? | No, to satisfy the claimed credit the Offeror shall submit the artifacts to substantiate the question. The Offeror shall enter the file name(s) or Identify the project title in Column G. | |
| 17 | BACKGROUND - Page 3 of the RFP under Note 7, the government states that the highest security levels that may be required on individual task orders are up to TS/SCI with Secret Safeguarding and that classified delivery orders require DSS facility clearances at the Delivery Order level while in the attached DD254 for the base contract section 1b states level of facility clearance AND safeguarding is TS/SCI. | |
| QUESTIONS - Would the government please clarify if all large and small business offerors require TS/SCI facility clearances with TS/SCI safeguarding for base contract award? If SCIFs are required for all prime contractors, would the government please clarify the proximity to PMA281 for these facilities and the minimum required capabilities for each of the offeror's facilities in order to qualify as a prime and whether a currently certified SAPF would qualify a prime as being responsible enough for a base contract award that would justify certifying the facility as a SCIF? | The DD254 has been updated and will be forthcoming Amendment. | |
| 18 | BACKGROUND - Page 130 in section 2.1.7 the government states "it is preferable that each volume not be broken up into multiple electronic files which appears to conflict with the information in Table 2 of Section 3 that explicitly names multiple files for each volume. | |
| QUESTIONS - Would the government please clarify if the desired offeror submission is as described in section 2.1.7 merging content into volumes or as described in table 2 of Section 3 with multiple documents for each volume? | See the Answer to Question #15 | |
| 19 | BACKGROUND - The limitation of the Relevant Experience Projects on Page 141 section 9.1.1 to four projects and the lack of specificity of performance over the 60 months of the period of performance for delivery orders/tasks renders the determination of principle subcontractor, as defined in section L part A paragraph 1.0 on page 128, indeterminable. |
QUESTIONS - Is it the government's intent to qualify the prime or JV offer as responsible and capable without its subcontractor teammates for the MAC base contract award and allow subcontractor/teammate determination and qualification at the Delivery/Task order level of this contract?
| Yes, the Government intends to only qualify at the highest level for the purposes of contract award. Subcontractor teammates will be evaluated at the delivery order level. | |
| 20 | BACKGROUND -Section 9.1.2.2 on Page 142 refers to demonstrating the offeror's ability handle and protect classified and unclassified information at the level identified in the DD254 which is stated as TS/SCI in both sections 1a and 1b. |
QUESTIONS - Given that this contract is for government hardware and software, would the government consider an offeror's demonstrated ability performed in government spaces on IDIQ tasks/delivery of government owned hardware, software integration performed under task orders (not completion orders) acceptable?
| No. | |
| 21 | BACKGROUND - Section 9.1.2.3 refers to Corporate Architecture Document showing an established development environment. |
QUESTIONS - Given that this contract is for government hardware and software, would the government consider an offeror's demonstrated ability performed in government spaces on IDIQ tasks/delivery of government owned hardware, software integration performed under task orders (not completion orders) acceptable?
| No. | |
| 22 | BACKGROUND - Section C, FFP CLINS 0014 through 0017: The solicitation states that the contractor shall provide (and price accordingly) each of the documents mentioned (Management Plan, Systems Engineering Management Plan, Software Development Plan, and Risk Management Plan) in accordance with particular DIDs. |
QUESTION: Are these plans designed to be at the MAC-level or will they need to be tailored for each specific DO/TO that they apply to? Following up with this question, will there be an FFP CLIN on each DO/TO that requires one of these documents to be tailored to that specific DO/TO?
| All plans are to be priced out at the MAC level. Should these documents be required at the delivery order level, the Offeror will have the opportunity to better the pricing, however will not be allowed to increase the pricing. | |
| 23 | BACKGROUND - Section L, 2.1.1: Instructions state that offerors are to “...provide two (2) complete copies of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the Contract Specialist in an electronic format via CD-ROM or DVD.” |
QUESTION: Can the government confirm this is a total of two for both individuals and not two (2) copies for each?
| The Offeror should provide two (2) copies of the proposal, 1 for PCO and 1 for Contract Specialist. | |
| 24 | BACKGROUND - Section L, 9.1.1(4): This section requires offerors to provide Original Contract Award Documents. As a Principle Subcontractor, none of the forms listed are available to us. |
QUESTION: Are offerors permitted to provide other official subcontract documents in lieu of the requested information?
| The Offeror must substantiate all information by providing enough evidence within a contract or delivery order document or other verifiable contractual documents to support each answer. The Offeror may provide any official, verifiable documentation necessary to validate any scored evaluation criteria being claimed. | |||
| 25 | Section L, 9.1.4.6: There are two separate paragraphs numbered 9.1.4.6. | This error has been corrected in the forthcoming amendment. | |
| 26 | BACKGROUND - Section L, 9.1.4.7 states offerors received points for both CMMI ML3. | ||
| QUESTION: Will offerors receive points for both CMMI L3 (Services) and CMMI ML3 (Development)? | The Offeror will receive points for one (1) CMMI Certification selected. | ||
| 27 | BACKGROUND - Section L 10.3.1 discusses required responses for Attachment L-4. Instructions require Fully-Burdened Composite Rate in Column “I” however; Attachment L-4 has a header of “Language” in Column “I.” Columns “J” through “L” have similar disagreements to instructions found in 10.3.1. Additionally, there is no column to place the mix labor category types and percentages required in the instructions. |
QUESTION - Could the government please clarify the requirements and provide instructions for filling out Attachment L-4?
| Column nomenclature has been corrected in Section 10.3.1 and will be in the forthcoming amendment. | |
| 28 | In Section L - Government may incorporate any portion of the proposal deemed beneficial to the government into the resulting contract, with or without discussions. |
Can the Government please confirm the sample Task Order in Section 10.2 will not be awarded with 0% fee and without further scope delineation?
| Attachment L-4 SLOC Sample will not be incorporated into the awarded MAC. | |||
| 29 | Given the potential number of files that will support 9.1.3 Corporate Experience and Past Performance Questions, will the Government approve the use of DVD-ROMs for proposal submission? | Yes, see Section 2.1.1 | |
| 30 | Section L9.1.1 pg 141. L9.3.7 & L9.1.3.8 refer to "previous" software/hardware development projects, however Section L9.1.1 states "Each offer will be limited to a MAXIMUM of four (4) Experience Projects for each MAC Self-Scoring Worksheet". Since 9.1.3.7 and 9.1.3.8 apply to each of the four projects used to build the Reference (a) self-scoring matrix, it appears that the wording of 9.1.3.7 and 9.1.3.8 requesting projects with previous software and hardware development is in conflict with the wording of RFP Section L9.1.1 Relevant Experience is tied solely to the Relevant Experience Projects submitted under Section 9.1.1. Please clarify how experience on previous software / hardware development projects should be documented. | Corrected, in forthcoming amendment. | |
| 31 | Section L9.1.1, Relevant Experience Projects states that "each project must have been completed within seven (7) years from the date proposals for this solicitation are due", but no longer mentions ongoing projects. Attachment L-2 Relevant Experience Project Template provides examples of how to notate period of performance, including MM/YYY-Present. Please confirm that ongoing projects qualify as relevant experience projects. | Attachment L-2 Relevant Experience Project Template has been corrected in the forthcoming amendment. | |
| 32 | The RFP Preamble states "for purposes of the maximum pass-through, any effort provided by a division, subsidiary or any other entity of the prime Contractor shall not be considered subcontracted effort." Please confirm that relevant experience projects from a division, subsidiary, or other entity are also not considered subcontractor experience and may be submitted to support the self-scoring worksheet. | No, the Offerors cannot submit relevant experience from a separate division/subsidiary or other entity. | |
| 33 | Ref: DRFP Page 112, Table 2: Volume 2, Relevant Experience Projects - Critical Questions and Corporate Experience and Past Performance Questions provides instructions to submit a separate document file for each question. In many cases offerors may use the same set of files to verify multiple scoring elements. Would the government consider allowing offerors to submit verification documents by project instead of by individual question to reduce the amount of files the government needs to review? | Please see the Final RFP for submission requirements. | |
| 34 | Ref: DRP Page 121 states, "the Offeror may provide any official verifiable documentation necessary to validate any scored evaluation criteria being claimed" Would the government also consider allowing submission of unofficial documentation such as client emails or letters that provide evidence of work performed by the Offeror? | Please see the Final RFP for submission requirements. | |
| 35 | Can the Government please confirm that Section B requires inputs for CLINs 0014,0015,0016, and 0017 only? No other inputs are expected in Section B? | Yes, the Offeror shall submit a FFP "Unit Price" for the FFP CLINs 0014, 0015, 0016 and 0017. | |
| 36 | Section 10.1 on pg. 152 refers to the CLIN Unit Prices for CLINs 0014,0015,0016,and 0017. Can the Government please clarify if the "unit price" required for each FFP CLIN is simply the CLIN's total FFP amount? | Correct, the Offeror shall submit total unit price for the FFP CLINs 0014, 0015, 0016 and 0017 only. | |
| 37 | Section L3, Table 2, Volume 1, Area 8.5 on Page 131 requests inclusion of any JV Teaming Arrangements in the Prime IDIQ MAC submittal, however Section H-2 on Page 91 appears to indicate Government evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements. Can we request confirmation that only teaming documents for any JV arrangement are to be included in the Prime IDIQ MAC Prime offer, in response to this Solicitation, and potential SubK teaming arrangements will be reserved for Delivery Order RFP responses? | Offerors are required to submit all Joint Ventures Teaming Arrangements IAW with the RFP. At the Delivery Order level, the Prime needs to provide all teaming arrangements IAW 5252.215-9505. Teaming arrangements will only be allowed at the DO level, not at the MAC level. | |
| 38 | Section L para 9.1.3.14 addresses the offeror’s experience with “organically developed software.” The definition of this term could not be found within the RFP. Would the Government please provide a detailed definition of the term “organically developed software?” | See the Answer to Question #14. | |
| 39 | RFP Section L, 10.3.1 CPFF CLINS; does the Government intend to correct the apparent disconnect between the columns cited in Sec. L and those reflected on the SLOC spreadsheet; changing columns I, J & K on to J, K & L on the spreadsheet? | Column nomenclature has been corrected in Section 10.3.1 and will be in the forthcoming amendment. | |
| 40 | RFP Section L, 10.3.3; is it the Government’s intent that offerors need to complete and submit RFP Section B with their pricing entered for CLINs 0014 – 0017 in order to fulfill this requirement? | Yes, please see the answer to Question #36. | |
| 41 | Page 139 Paragraph 8.2 of the Final RFP it states "The Offeror is to provide signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM)". | ||
| Question: Would we would need to complete the Annual Representations and Certifications that are contained in Section I, if we complete the RFP Representations and Certifications, besides the NAVAIR provision in Section K? | Clause 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS will be moved to Section K, along with DFARS Clause 252.204-7007. This will be provided in the forthcoming amendment. | ||
| 42 | For relevant experience Projects - Critical Questions (9.1.2.1 - 9.1.2.6. ) does the evidence have to be from one of the 4 selected projects or are these general corporate questions? If it applies to the projects do you have to show evidence from all 4 projects or "at least" one project? Can the evidence come from corporate-wide projects? | For each critical question, the Offeror will receive points for one (1) Relevant Experience Project provided. | |
| 43 | Table 2, Proposal Format Table, section 9.1.2 mentions that “Each project with all supporting documents shall be submitted in a single file” yet the following rows from 9.1.2.1 to 9.1.2.6 are individually supporting files. Do you infer that these files will be consolidated into a single file per project? Please clarify. | See the Answer to Question #15 | |
| 44 | To satisfy the requirement to provide evidence a critical question is answered and the evidence is a full document such as a CM Plan or Software Development Plan to support a Relevant Experience question (for example for 9.1.3.3 SW Baseline Configuration Management) | ||
| Question: Is it the governments intent for the the offeror to pdf this file and combine it with all the other information into the single ABC.VOL2.SoftBaseCM.pdf file or can we reference the document in the ABC.VOL2.SoftBaseCM.pdf file and then provide the CM Plan as a separate *.pdf file? | The Offeror can reference the document in the ABC.VOL2.SoftBaseCM.pdf file and then provide the CM Plan as a separate *.pdf file. | ||
| 45 | The client has provided templates to use that use various fonts and layouts outside of the requirements (margin and font sizes) for the proposal. |
Question: Do these files stay in the provided format?
Question: Can we use a smaller font for headers/footers inside of margins (generally these are provided to make it easier for the client to navigate through a document)?
| Please clarify and provide more details on your question. | |
| 46 | Section 8.4 SMALL BUSINESS (SB) SUBCONTRACTING PLAN – Requires all Large Business Offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in compliance with FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7, with specific goals of SB—23%, SDB—5%, SDVOSB—3%, HUBZone—3%, and WOSB—5%. |
Question: Will the Government allow for the Prime to submit a subcontracting plan at the task order level instead of the IDIQ contract level since the task order will be the driver as to how the subcontracting will be defined
| All Large Businesses that propose on the MAC need to provide a Master Subcontracting Plan stating the goals for the company for the life of the MAC. Each Delivery Order will have an Individual Subcontracting Plan that specifies the %'s for that piece of the work. | |
| 47 | RFP N00019-19-R-0040 Section L 3.0 Proposal Content and volumes state "The Proposal Format Table provided in Section 3.0 is provided to assist Offerors in organizing their proposal submission documents to ensure the Government can easily identify which documents apply to which criteria for evaluation purposes. Table 2 specifies that Attachment L-2 Relevant Experience Project would be delivered as a PDF File 'ABC.VOL2.Project1.PDF' or as appropriately named to identify each of the 4 projects. |
Question: Attachment L2 was provided in Word format and further requested in Table 2, "Each project with all supporting documents shall be submitted in a single file. No page limitations for supporting documents." Is the government exception that Attachment L2 is delivered as a separate PDF file apart from the project file containing responds to items 9.1.4.1 through 9.1.4.39."
| Attachment L-2 Relevant Experience Project was provided in edible format WORD. To validate and support Questions 9.1.4.1 through 9.1.4.39, the Offeror shall submit Relevant Projects in PDF format. | |
| 48 | RFP N00019-19-R-0040 Section L 3.0 Proposal Content Table 2 item 9.1.2 "Relevant Experience Projects - Critical Questions |
Each project with all supporting documents shall be submitted in a single file. No page limitations for supporting documents."
Question: For each item 9.1.2.1 through 9.1.2.39 is the governments expectation that the evidence for all four projects be combined into a single *.pdf file (i.e., ABC.VOL2.ArchBaseTool.pdf) for each critical question? Or will each Project have their own set of files for each question?
| Please see the answer to Question #15. | |
| 49 | RFP N00019-19-R-0040 Section L 3.0 Proposal Content Table 2 item 9.1.2 "Relevant Experience Projects - Critical Questions |
Each project with all supporting documents shall be submitted in a single file. No page limitations for supporting documents."
Question: Each item 9.1.2.1 through 9.1.2.39 specifies that documentation adequate to verify is to be incorporated in a file specific to the item. as the deliverable is electronic format Should the instructions in 9.1.2 reference a folder structure that incorporates all individual files for a single project together.
| Please see the answer to Question #15. | |
| 50 | Attachment L-1 Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet: Requesting the Government to un-lock column G to enable text wrapping so the offerer has space to include the required verification file names and responses. |
| All vendors need to click "enable" to type in Column G. | |
| 51 | Section L - 9.1.1 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS (L2, SOW, Contract Documents) |
Section L - 9.1.2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS - CRITICAL QUESTIONS (supporting information and data)
| Please clarify that the Government issued documents to be used for verification – i.e. L2, SOW, Contract Documents, supporting information and data – may be submitted in their native Government program deliverable formats. | Yes, all official documentation provided as artifacts may be submitted in their native submitted formats. | ||
| 52 | Pg 139, Section 8.2: "The Offerer is to provide signed Reps and Cert and Acknowledgements and/or System for Award Management (SAM)". QUESTION: Per Table 2 (Proposal Format Table), Reps and Cert is "limited to Section K", however 8.2 instructions seems to be asking for all completed Reps/Certs from SAM. Does the Government require submission of all Reps and Certs (FAR 52.212-3) from SAM in our proposal submission, or only a signed Section K (and OCI fill-in) from the RFP (1 page)? | Yes, the Government is requesting all completed Reps and Certs from SAM, as well as, Section K. | |
| 53 | Pg 138, Section 8.1: "...the Offeror shall fill out blocks 12 through 18 [of SF33]...in addition to completion of any solicitation clause....and Section G [Routing Data Table] of the SF 33 Form". QUESTION: Per Table 2 (Proposal Format Table), Section 8.1 SF 33 is limited to the SF 33 Form, however the proposal instructions request SF 33, all fill-in clauses, and Section G. Can Offerers submit SF 33, contract clauses, and Section G as a single document to comply with Volume I, 8.1 instructions? Or, alternately, submit 3 separate docs to comply with 8.1 requirements? | The Offeror is allowed to submit SF33, all fill-in clauses and Section G into a single document. | |
| 54 | SSWS: It appears Cells D41, D42, and D43 are inactive to enter a "Yes" in the field. | Corrected, in forthcoming amendment. | |
| 55 | Does the Government require an OPSEC Plan for (CLIN 13) for FFP cost evaluation? The DID for this plan was included as Attachment 3, similar to CLINs 0014, 0015, 0016 and 0017. | Yes, The Government will award a Delivery Order (DO) for $1,000 for the submittal of the Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan (CLIN 0013), which will satisfy the minimum guarantee price, to each Offeror selected for an IDIQ award under the PMA-281 MAC | |
| 56 | Line 17 of Attachment L-4 Source Lines of Code (SLOC) Spreadsheet states, "Assume software implementation task using ten (10) Mid-Grade Personnel/Journeyman." RFP para 10.3.1 states, "Column I, Fully Burdened Composite Labor Rate: The fully burdened labor rate shall include all direct and indirect labor costs associated with the effort. The Offeror shall also provide the software development of mix labor types/categories and percentages used to calculate the fully burdened labor rate (e.g. software engineer, systems engineer, project manager, contracting officer, etc.)." Please confirm that offerors shall price out 10 Mid-Grade Personnel/Journeyman FTE's with an adder for Program Management and Finance? | The Fully Burden Labor Rate shall account for all direct and indirect charges associated with Software Development. | |
| 57 | The final RFP omitted Statements of Work (SOWs) as sufficient evidence to verify an offeror's Relevant Experience Claims within each subparagraph of RFP 9.1.2.x and 9.1.3.x. However, the emphasized statement in 9.1.1.2 indicates offerors may still use SOWs as supporting evidence: “Additionally, the offeror must also identify and call attention to the specific section or sections of the SOW that support the claim of having performed the claimed scoring elements on Attachment L-1.” Will the Government confirm SOWs may be used as sufficient evidence of having performed the claimed elements? | Example data artifacts to satisfy the relevant experience questions are defined in Section 9.1.1. The submitted data artifacts must be verifiable contractual documents that support each answer and the points claimed. | |
| 58 | In the final RFP section 10.3.1 states Column I Fully Burdened Composite Labor Rate, Column J Proposed Hours and Column K Proposed Costs for inputs in SLOC Spreadsheet Attachment L-4. Spreadsheet Attachment L-4 shows Column J Fully Burdened Composite Labor Rate, Column K Proposed Hours and Column L Proposed Costs. Is the final RFP section 10.3.1 incorrect or is there an updated Spreadsheet Attachment L-4? | Column nomenclature has been corrected in Section 10.3.1 and will be in the forthcoming amendment. | |
| 59 | There is no Attachment 2 included with the documents and attachments sent by the Government. Is this an oversight or is there an additional Attachment 2 needed to complete this bid? | Please see Section J. | |
| 60 | RFP section 9.1.3 states, "Each project with all supporting documents shall be submitted in a single file." Should this be stated as "Relevant Experience verification documents from each of the four programs shall be submitted in a single file for each Relevant Experience area."? | Please see the answer to Question #15. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .