Attachment 3. N0018926QB055_Answers.pdf
PDF 103 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Adjunct Faculty Support Services
- Solicitation number
- N0018926QB055
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for Solicitation N0018926QB055, providing clarifications on submission requirements and evaluation criteria for quoters.
The document addresses 15 questions covering past performance evaluation, pricing submission format, and course hour specifications. Key clarifications include: Past Performance Information (PPI) Forms must be completed for each reference and are not substitutes for CPARS, though quoters may include CPARS copies without counting toward page limits; previously completed PPI forms may be reused if information remains relevant and factual; the government provides PPI form templates (Attachment #2) and pricing templates in unlocked Microsoft Excel format (Attachment #1); CLIN 0001 encompasses both years of the two-year ordering period; and quoters have discretion in determining appropriate supporting documentation for price justification. The incumbent contract number is N0018926PB009, held by Oneida Professional Services. The document establishes four adjectival ratings for management approach evaluation (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable) and five confidence-rating levels for past performance assessment (Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, and No Confidence). Marginal and Limited Confidence ratings render quotes unawardable as proposed, while Unacceptable and No Confidence ratings are unacceptable. Quoters are required to submit pricing on Page 4 of the original solicitation within Volume II.
View the file
Other files
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
Solicitation N0018926QB055 Questions and Answers
Q1. Will the Government provide Past Performance Information (PPI) Form templates for completion?
Yes, see attachment # 1 to this amendment.
Q2. Will CPARS be accepted in lieu of completed PPI forms?
No. The PPI form is not a substitute for CPARS.
Per the solicitation, “The quoter should complete a “Past Performance Information Form” for each reference submitted.” A CPARS is not a substitute for the Past Performance Information Form. However, as provided in the solicitation, “The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside the Government,” which could include available CPARS. Quoters may include copies of CPARS for submitted references, which will not count toward the page limit for non-price quotes.
Q3. May previously completed PPI forms be reused for this submission?
Please use the attached document and ensure the information provided is relevant and factual and follows the Addendum to 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2.
Q4. Will the government clarify the expected course hours? 80 or 64?
The solicitation is clear on its face.
Q5. Respectfully request a deadline of at least two weeks after all questions are answered.
The current deadline remains unchanged.
Q6. Can the government provide the incumbent contract number?
N0018926PB009
Q7 . Can the government provide the incumbent contractor?
Oneida Professional Services
Q8. Does CLIN 0001 include both ordering periods (Year 1 and Year 2)?
CLIN 0001 includes both years of the two-year ordering period.
Q9. Amendment 1, page 6 states: “Volume II shall include the completed solicitation documents and a complete and detailed price breakdown with all supporting documentation. The price quote shall include all elements of price and such other cost information as considered appropriate to support the quote.” Can the government provide a list of supporting documents required?
The solicitation gives the quoter discretion to determine what information is appropriate to include to justify their quoted price.
Q10. The evaluation criteria presented on page 37 do not define adjectival ratings to be used to evaluate the management approach or their meanings. Can the government clarify the adjectival ratings?
Outstanding: Quote demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Good: Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.
Acceptable: Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Marginal: Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. (Marginal is a less-than-acceptable rating and renders a quote unawardable as proposed.)
Unacceptable: Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.
Q11. The evaluation criteria presented on page 37 does not define the confidence-rating scale the government intends to use to evaluate past performance. Can the government provide the scale and rating descriptions?
Substantial Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.
Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral Confidence: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the quoter’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The quoter may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
Limited Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort. (Limited Confidence is a less-than-acceptable rating and renders a quote unawardable as proposed.)
No Confidence: Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort. (No Confidence is an unacceptable rating and renders a quote unawardable.)
Q12. The instructions presented in Amendment 1. III QUOTE CONTENT (b) Past Performance state: The quoter should present a Past Performance Information Form for each reference submitted. The solicitation package does not include a form. Can the government confirm quoters should design their own form for inclusion in the proposal or provide the past performance information form?
See attachment # 2
Q13. The solicitation states "Volume II shall be in an unlocked Microsoft Excel format for the pricing spreadsheet".
Will the Government provide a Pricing Template and/or submission sheet for Quoters to present their pricing or should the Quoter create one?
See attachment # 1 to this amendment.
Q15. The solicitation states "The Price Quote in Volume II shall include the solicitation pricing pages completed by the quoter". Which pages are the solicitation pricing pages to be completed by the Quoter?
Page 4 of the original solicitation.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .