Q__A_-_DOCUMENT_3_18_2016.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT SERVICES Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- PBGC01-RP-16-0001
- Issued by
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
About this file
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q_A_-_DOCUMENT_2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| AMENDMENT_03_-_signed.pdf | ||
| AMENDMENT_2_-_3_17_2016_-_SIGNED.pdf | ||
| AMENDMENT_I_-_03_15_2016_-_signed.pdf | ||
| Attachment_4_-_03_15_2016.pdf | ||
| LABOR_CATEGORIES-03_15_2016.pdf | ||
| Attachment_3.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1.pdf | ||
| Attachment_4.pdf | ||
| FormSF1449_-_02_26_2016_PM.pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Question: | Answer: |
| 1 | Is this a new requirement? If not, can you please provide the name of the incumbent, the current contract value and eligibility criteria to re-compete? | NO, this is not a new requirement. The incumbent is Battle Resource Management, Inc. and the contract has a ceiling of $11,000,000. See the solicitation for the criteria. |
| 2 | Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number PBGC01RP160001 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government? | Please provide your response based on the requirements outlined in the solicitation. The Current contract number is PBGC01-D-11-0010. |
| 3 | Is there an incumbent? If so, what's the contract # and value? | See response to question # 1 above. |
| 4 | Is this the first issue of this solicitation - Is this a re-compete of an existing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation requirement or a new requirement? | See response to question # 1 above. |
| 5 | Can you advise on whether or not there were/are incumbent provider(s) for these services? If Yes – Who is/are the incumbent(s)? | See response to question # 1 above. |
| 6 | If there is an incumbent, is there a reason the known incumbent may be precluded from bidding on this new or existing requirement? | See response to question # 1 above. |
| 7 | Is this new work or is the work currently performed by an incumbent service provider? | Currently, the work is provided by Battle Resource Management Inc. |
| 9 | How many vendors would be awarded contract as a part of this opportunity? | This is a solicitation for a single award IDIQ contract. A single vendor will be awarded this contract.(Please see page 23 of the solicitation.) |
| 10 | Can this requirement be facilitated as a SBA 8 (A) Set-Aside? | This requirement is 100% small business set-aside. (Please see page 1, block 10 of the solicitation.) |
| 11 | Is this requirement part of a Multiple Award Schedule/Contract or is it a Single Award Schedule/Contract? | See response to question # 9 above. |
| 12 | Has Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation held preliminary meetings with specific contractors interested in responding to this solicitation? | No. |
| 13 | Is there an initial task order that will start on or near the award date of the IDIQ? | No. |
| 14 | Many small businesses gain significant experience as a subcontractor; would the government consider relaxing the requirement that “All past performance references for work performed by the Offeror must be for work that was performed as a prime contractor”? | No. PBGC seeks a vendor who has experience delivering as a prime contractor. |
| 15 | In regarding to the “highly desirable” preference for relevant past performance of a “minimum of $2M per year and experience using an EA automated support tool”; did the pre-solicitation market research indicate this was a common aspect of potential EA support vendors besides the incumbent? That is, did the pre-solicitation market research indicate that other small business, besides BRMi, met the preference for a “minimum of $2M per year and experience using an EA automated support tool” for the work in the PWS? If no market research for this RFP was conducted, then we recommend a more typical pure EA level-of-effort which can run between only $250K to about $1M per year for an agency the size of PBGC. | PBGC has consistently expended $2 million per year on Enterprise Architecture work. |
| 16 | Section L - Page 55, Factor 2 of the RFP states “Past performance being a prime contractor on an EA support contract with a minimum of $2M per year and experience using an EA automated support tool is highly desirable.” As a small business, we bring strong past performance in EA support, however our past contracts are under the $2M threshold and we were a subcontractor. We ask that the government remove the $2M and prime contractor requirements to allow small businesses with a track record of successful EA delivery, and strong past performance references, to be able to bid as a prime. | See response to question # 15 above. |
| 17 | Page 55 lf 63, paragraph 4 states, “…as a prime contractor…” Please consider removing the requirement for the past performance be a prime contractor effort. Subcontracts of similar size and scope enable offerors more options to select their most relevant references. | See response to question # 15 above. |
| 18 | Page 55 of 63, paragraph 4 states, “…with a minimum of $2M per year…” Please confirm $2M is of similar magnitude/dollar value to the per year estimate for this effort. | Yes. |
| 19 | Page 55 of 63, paragraph 4 states, “…with a minimum of $2M per year…” Will the Government consider removing the requirement for the past performance to be a minimum of $2M per year as this is a Small Business set aside and this will eliminate many qualified companies that have demonstrated EA qualifications but not with a contract value that large? | See response to question # 15 above. |
| 20 | In Page 54, under fact 2- Past performance excerpt states ”The Offeror shall provide references for completed contracts performed for Federal Government and/or commercial clients that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance for Enterprise Architecture support services”. Our company has observed from our experience that state experiences are completely different from federal projects. The same will also reflect on the SLA's that come along with it. Therefore will our past experience with a local county counted the same way or as a federal experience? | Yes, if the work is similar in nature. |
| 21 | Can the company rely on the key personnel's experience as the past performance? | No. Past Performance is how well the offeror/business has performed similar work in the past. |
| 22 | Page No 56 Factor 3 states "Key and Non Key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Base IDIQ level. Key and Non Key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Task Order level." Please explain | Please propovide resumes for all personnel. We will review at the IDIQ level all the key and and non-key personnel. We will review at the task order level all the key and non-key personnel. |
| 23 | In the excerpt from page no 55. "Past performance being a prime contractor on an EA support contract with a minimum of $2M per year and experience using an EA automated support tool is highly desirable. In addition, if the Offeror is proposing to use a team structure for this program, one of the three past performance references may involve work performed by proposed subcontractors or teaming partners”. Our question - Can past performance from a subcontractor be utilized for the $2M requirement and also meet the one or more minimum qualifications? | No. |
| 24 | Do you require only the key personnel resume (Enterprise Architect Lead) with the proposal? | See response to question#22 above. |
| 25 | Is there a prescribed procedure for technical evaluation on this solicitation? If so, can you describe procedures? | Please see section M Evaluation Factors for Award on page 60. |
| 26 | Does this requirement stipulate that the proposed bidder most hold an active Form DD254 Facility Clearance "PRIOR TO BEING AWARDED” this contract? | No. |
| 27 | If an active Form DD254 Facility Clearance is required will arrangements be made to assist and provide adequate time to process the required paperwork or are bidders without DD254 Facility Clearance not advised to participate | See response to question # 26 above. |
| 28 | In regard to provision of Key and Non-Key personnel, could the Government clarify some details on page 56 of the RFP? Currently, the RFP states: Factor 3 - Experience and Qualifications of Personnel the Offeror shall clearly state and describe the experience, qualifications and availability of proposed KEY personnel essential to the support of the Base IDIQ in resume form. Key and Non-Key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Base IDIQ level. From the above sentences, it appears that the Government wants 1) resumes for all candidates (both Key and Non-Key), and 2) availability of only the Key personnel (Enterprise Architect Lead)? Could the Government clarify if this is the intent? | See response to question#22 above. |
| 29 | On page 56 of the RFP, item 10 of the past performance information requests, “Small business (SB) participation: indicate any SB participation goals established in the contract, and the level of achievement of those goals in actual execution”. Since all the responders for this solicitation are small businesses, could the Government clarify the rationale for this request? We are more than happy to provide a response, we just want to ensure we understand the Government’s intent. | This is an error. The Government removed this sentence from the proposal submission. |
| 30 | Page 17 of 63, Section 2.6 Performance Quality states, “QCP…within thirty calendar days…” while Section 3. Deliverables table states, “QCP…10 days after award”. Would the Government please confirm the due date of the QCP? | The answer is 10 days. |
| 31 | Page 22 of 63 Section F2. Place of Performance states, “At a minimum….shall provide coverage….” And “…available to cover all lunch periods during the hours of operation…” Given the nature of this effort, type of task orders, and labor categories, would the Government please consider removing this requirement? | PBGC is keeping the requirement as is. |
| 32 | Page 26 of 63, Labor Category Requirements states, “Enterprise Architect Lead…Experience with Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) framework…” while the “Enterprise Consultant Analyst…10 years of demonstrated knowledge with FEA framework…” Would the Government consider removing the 10 year aspect of FEA requirement for the Enterprise Consultant Analyst? | PBGC considered the request and concluded to change the requirement for the Enterprise consultant Analyst from 10 years of experience to 7 years or more. |
| 33 | Page 27 of 63, 2. Junior Enterprise Consultant states, “…requirements for architectural analysis task orders.” Would the Government considering removing the requirement that the architectural analysis be performed specifically for “task orders”? | Yes, PBGC removed "task orders" and replaced it with "efforts". |
| 34 | Page 30 of 63 bullet three for the Security SME states, “Demonstrated Technical Knowledge in the following:” Would the Government consider updating to the following “Demonstrated Technical Knowledge in two or more of the following:” due to the diversity of the technical requirements and variance from typical security engineering skillsets? | Please provide a response in accordance with the solicitation. |
| 35 | Page 54 of 63, paragraph 4 states, “…program-level Quality Assurance and Performance Surveillance Plan…” Please confirm this should read “program-level quality control plan”. | Yes. |
| 36 | Page 55 of 63, paragraph 4 states, “…an EA automated support tool…” Does the Government have a list of preferred EA automated support tools under consideration? | The Government cannot provide a list of preferred EA automated support tools at this time. |
| 37 | Page 56 of 63, paragraph 3 states, “Key and Non-key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Base IDIQ level.” And “Key and Non-key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Task Order level.” Please confirm that resumes are only required for key personnel. | See response to question#22 above. |
| 38 | Page 56 of 63, paragraph 3 states, “Key and Non-key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Base IDIQ level.” And “Key and Non-key personnel shall be proposed and evaluated at the Task Order level.” Please confirm personnel snapshots or cameos are acceptable to describe non-key personnel. | Please submit resumes in accordance with the solicitation. |
| 39 | Page 61 of 63, Section M.2.3 states, “…commitment letters.” Please confirm commitment letters are only required for key personnel not currently employed by the offeror. | Yes, commitment letters are required for key personnel only. |
| 40 | Attachment 4, Base Year, please confirm the Security SME is not required for the Base Year. | Please see Amendment 01 to the solicitation for the most up-to-date Pricing Schedule. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .