QA HT001121R0004_AMENDMENT 0002_ 04.12.2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 87 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HT001121R00040002
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ATTACHMENT L1 Present and Past Performance Information Form_A0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT S1 SMALL BUSINESS PARTCIPATION CALCULATION TEMPLATE_A0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT L2 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE _A0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| HT001121R00014_OMNIBUS IV _ 04.12.2021_AMEND0002.pdf | ||
| Attach 3_Price Sheet_A002.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HT001121R00014_OMNIBUS IV _ 04.12.2021_AMEND0002_CONFORMED COPY.pdf | ||
| Attach4_Self Scoring Worksheet_A002.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
VENDOR NAME
| QUESTION # | REFERENCE | |||||
| (e.g. Solicitation or Attachments, and Section) | QUESTION CATEGORY | QUESTION | COD | PM | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| 1 | RFP L.2.7. | Technical | Technical: The Q&A has multiple occurrences where it refers to guidance and answers to question #15. When reviewing the Q&A question #15 states “ see question #15”. Please provide an answer to question #15. | |||
| Is there limitation on the number of teams a subcontractor can participate in across multiple market segments? | (A) See Amendment 0001 to HT001121R0004 Posted on 03.26.2021, (b) See RFP Section L.2.7.1. Note. | |||||
| 2 | Per the attached solicitation, we are attempting to register for the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) module, but we did not receive a copy of Attachment 6 with the instructions for this. Would you be able to provide a copy of that attachment? | Attachment # 6 is available for download on BETA.GOV.SAM. | ||||
| 3 | QA FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, Question 15 | Contract | The answer to Question 15 is to "see the answer to Question 15". This is self-referencing. Would the government please provide the answer to question 15? Please note that many other questions in the QA reference the answer to question 15. For example, question 16, 48, 82, 93, 94, 101, 115 and others all have answers that refer to the answer to quetion 15. | See Amendment 0001 to HT001121R0004 Posted on 03.26.2021 | ||
| 4 | 1. Concern– Will the Government please reconsider previous response and allow the entire team to present mixed response to the proficiency areas. Lead and support could be shown in the header, example below. The combined response best represents the team and is unique to the team since subcontractors have to be exclusive. Supporting information. The Government requirement for a single team member (Prime or subcontractor) to respond to a Proficiency area limits the participation of small business and limits competition overall. Teams are formed to provide a complete solution to the SOO by combining the strength of the entire team rather than rely on a single member. Small business may provide valuable services in a proficiency for a few program areas without being able to score well on its own covering all 10 program areas. These small business will be marginalized in favor of larger business who can score a proficiency on its own. In addition, by not allowing the team to show its combined strengths for a proficiency area across all 10 program areas, competition is limited to those very few, very large business who can cover all program areas within a proficiency on their own. | See Amendment 0002. Mixing, blending, or collective team response to a specific Proficiency Area is not allowed. Only one score sheet per Market Segment, one company per Proficiency Area. If a prime uses the core competencies of its subsidiary (other division) and that subsidiary (other division) has a separate CAGE code, then list the subsidiary (other division) as a subcontractor in the Self-Scoring Worksheet. | ||||
| 5 | 2. Concern – Will the Government please reconsider previous response requiring LOI for SMEs featured in Part C for Market Segment R&D SS and Transition SS? The ability to hire a SME is best represented by the SME having once worked for the firm regardless of current status. | |||||
| Supporting information. Part C is to identify the experience and personnel that satisfy the eligibility criteria in Part B. The nature of support services (Market Segment R&D SS and TS S&S) is such that SMEs are hired for a specific contract, thus the best measure of a firm’s ability to hire a SME is to name the person associated with the experience regardless of the current employment status and without an LOI. A letter of intent signifies a company’s intent to hire a SME and the SME’s agreement to accept the job offer. Unlike for a Task Order, a MATOC prime contract lacks a specific potential position for the SME. Therefore, it is misrepresentative for a firm to give a potential offer of employment when there is no executable work upon award of the MATOC. More importantly, the potential employee is misled to believe they may receive a position when no position is available while they may jeopardize their current employment status if it is known they have signed an LOI with another firm. Recruiting is a serious and resource intensive exercise for both firms and candidates and is best undertaken when there is defined project at the Task Order level. | Disclose to the SME in the LOI that this is for a proposal to the Government only and there is no specific work identified as yet. LOI's are only necessary if the SME is not an employee of the company called out in the Self-Scoring Worksheet. The LOI does not have to be for a period of time (e.g., 5 years). Proof of prior employment in lieu of an LOI is not acceptable. | |||||
| 6 | N/A | Would you please send me any documents that are public information? I thought I saw some on the posting, but they seem to have disappeared. | See original posting (add link). March 17, 2021. Each amendment is posted under a unique link. | |||
| 7 | QA for Draft RFP Posting OMNIBUS IV, Q #27 | Technical | The response appears to indicate that Prime offerors can either self-score each Market Segment proficiency based on their own capabilities OR those from their subcontracting partners, but not both. This approach seems to be contrary to the concept of building and proposing integrated teams that would support DoD/DHA for this large and diverse IDIQ. In the absence of modified instructions, can 1) DoD confirm that offerors should submit only ONE score sheet – either for their own capabilities OR for their subcontractors – per proficiency? Or, 2) does DoD intend that offeror comprised of prime and subs submit multiple scoring sheets per proficiency that would then be additive to yield a total score? | Confirmed, submit only one scoring sheet per Market Segment. | ||
| 8 | QA for Draft RFP Posting OMNIBUS IV, Q #262; Solicitation Section L.4.3, Present and Past References, page 66 of 90 | Contract | Q&A #262 confirms we can include CPARS in lieu of PPPQs but the language in the March 17, 2021 RFP, Section L.4.3, pp. 66 - 67, regarding the requirement for PPPQs hasn't changed. Please confirm offerors can use CPARS in lieu of PPPQs. | Yes, Confirmed | ||
| 9 | Solicitation Section L.1.2, Table L.1.2 Proposal organization, Volume II, Factor 1, Technical, page 54 of 90 | Technical | The final RFP revises the per proficiency page limit from 6 down to 2 pages. This reduction will make it difficult for offerors to provide very much detail in fulfillment of requirements for Parts A, B and C. Please confirm the page limit per proficiency is now 2 pages. | See Table L.1.2. The page limitation is 2 pages per Part, for a total of 6 pages per Proficiency Area Demonstration. Additional pages beyond the 6 pages, such as introduction or executive summary, is not allowed. Reallocation of 2 pages among the 6 pages is not allowed. See L.3.3.1. Proficiency Demonstrations shall be numbered with the same number of the Proficiency Area stated within the Self-Scoring Worksheet. | ||
| 10 | Solicitation Section L.1.2 Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits, page 54 of 90, item c. | Contract | 1) Would it be acceptable for offerors to email the Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPPQ) (Attachment L-2) in WORD to aid the respective clients in preparing their response? 2) If so, would it also be acceptable for clients to email the completed WORD versions to the team e-mail address shown in Paragraph L.1.1.1, dha.ncr.cod-fc.mbx.dha-acqomnibus-iv@mail.mil? | 1) Yes. 2) No, Clients shall submit completed PPPQs in PDF. See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 11 | Solicitation Section L.2.4, Government Offices, also reference SF 33, items 23 and 25, page 59 of 90 | Contract | Section L.2.4 of the solicitation titled “Government Offices” requests that the mailing address, telephone and facility code of the Government Paying Office be provided by the offeror. This information is generally provided by the Procuring Contracting Officer/Administrative Contracting Officer because it is tied to the DoDAAC of the procuring/administering agency, and not the location of the offeror. Since most offerors have multiple ACOs depending on the awarding agency, please confirm that this requirement at L.2.4 is removed, and that the information will be provided by the government at time of award. | See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 12 | Solicitation Section L.2.4, Government Offices, also reference SF 33, item 24, page 59 of 90 | Contract | Section L.2.4 of the solicitation titled “Government Offices” requests that the name, telephone, fax numbers, and email address of the Administrative Contracting Office be provided by the offeror. This information is generally provided by the Procuring Contracting Officer/Administrative Contracting Officer because responsibility for administration of the contract is determined at the time of award by the PCO/ACO. Since most offerors have multiple GPOs depending on the awarding agency, please confirm that this requirement at L.2.4 is removed, and that the information will be provided by the government at time of award. | See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 13 | Solicitation Section L.5.2, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, page 69 of 90 | Contract | On page 69, under “L.5.2 Note,” the solicitation states, “For Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluation purposes…such that subcontracted percentages are based on Total Contract Value as the denominator rather than total amount of subcontracted value as the denominator.” In accordance with FAR 52.219-9 (d) (1), goals must be expressed as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. Is it acceptable to present goals based on total subcontract value and also total contract value? | See L.5.2. Contracting Officer has discretion. See FAR 19.704. $10B should not be divided into four Market Segments. See L.5.1 for definition of Total Contract Value, which is $10B for this acquisition. | ||
| 14 | Solicitation Attachment L-2, page 75 of 90, also reference Attachment L-2, Present and Past Performance Questionnaire | Contract | The due date indicated on page 75 of 90 for receipt by the DoD for the completed ATTACHMENT L-2: Present and Past Performance Questionnaire(s)from clients is 1 PM EST MARCH 12, 2021. Given that the RFP was released on March 17, 2021, please provide a revised due date for receipt by the DoD of completed ATTACHMENT L-2: Present and Past Performance Questionnaire(s). | See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 15 | Attachment 3, Price Sheet | Contract | Attachment 3 includes the following statment, "Contractor Proposed Labor Categories and rates will be submitted in supplemental pricing sheet." 1) Will the supplemental pricing sheet be provided by the government? 2) If not, please confirm if offerors should submit their current GSA MAS Rate schedule in place of the referenced supplemental pricing sheet. | See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 16 | Reviewed QA_FOR_DRAFT_RFP_POSTING_OMNIBUS_IV.xlsx (Released Questions/Answers) | NA | Answer to Q#3 seems to be cut off. The question was 'Can a vendor receive an award as a small business and a large business? If so, are we required to submit separate proposals for each socioeconomic category?' | See FAR 52.219-31. "The small business concern(s) eligible for participation in the reserve shall submit one [Market Segment] offer that addresses each portion of the solicitation for which it wants to compete." See L.2.0 Note. A small business receiving an award may compete for unrestricted task orders. Separate proposals for each socioeconomic category are not required. See M.3.1. See L.5.1. See M.2.4. See L.2.9. See L.2.7.1 Note. | ||
| 17 | Reviewed QA_FOR_DRAFT_RFP_POSTING_OMNIBUS_IV.xlsx (Released Questions/Answers) | Solicitation, L.2.6 Market Segment, paragraph 1 | Answer to question #15 states See Answer to Question 15. Please provide the complete answer to question #15 | See Amendment 0001 to HT001121R0004 Posted on 03.26.2021 | ||
| 18 | Attachment L-2 Present and Past Performance Questionnaire | Contract | In order to reduce undue burden on customers, can the offeror use a single PPPQ template that would accommodate a multiple market segment response from our individual customer versus sending duplicate PPPQs for the same referenced project for each market segment? | See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 19 | Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment L-2) and L.4.3 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES page #66 of 90 of the RFP | Contract | RFP L.4.3 Page # 66 states "The Offeror may provide CPARS in addition | |||
| to the Present and Past Performance Information Form". However, answer to questions #261 and 294 indicates that CPARS can be used instead of (in lieu of) PPPQ. Please clarify? | The Government would like to strike the answer to Draft RFP Question 261. It is the Government’s requirement that all Offeror’s shall ensure that each reference listed in their Past Performance Volume fills out and submits a PPPQ (L-2). The Government is also allowing the Offeror to provide CPARS in addition to the Present and Past Performance Information Form. |
| 20 | Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment L-2) | Contract | What is the correct due date for Attachment L-2 RFP Page #75 of 90? Currently, it states March 12th 2021. | See Amendment 0002. | |
| 21 | NA | Contract | How would the government decide if a small business receives its IDIQ award in the small business reserve? | See Section M.3.3. See answer to Question # 16. | |
| 22 | NA | Contract | What do a small business need to do in order to receive the OMNI 4 IDIQ award such that they can bid on large (Unrestricted) and small business set aside task orders? | See Answer to Question # 16. | |
| 23 | NA | Contract | Can small businesses that are awarded the OMNI 4 IDIQ in the small business reserve bid on the large business lane (unrestricted) task orders? | Yes. See Answer to Question # 16. | |
| 24 | L.3.3.1.3 | Contract | Which volume should contain signed letter of intents (LoI) from SMEs? | See L.3.3.1.3. | |
| 25 | L.3.3.1.3 | Contract | Are signed letter of intents (LoI) by SMEs counted against the page limits? | See Section L. | |
| 26 | RFP Section L.5.0, Page 67; Section L.6.0, Page 69 | Instructions to Offerors | For Volumes I, II, and III, the RFP states the general layout of each section, which includes a Table of Contents, List of Figures, Tables, or Drawings, and a Glossary, in addition to the other Volume requirements. Volumes IV and V do not have this organization provided. Can the Government confirm that offerors should include a Table of Contents, List of Figures, Tables, or Drawings, and a Glossary within Volumes IV and V? | Confirmed. | |
| 27 | RFP Section L.3.3.1, Pages 62-64 | Proficiency Demonstrations | For both Section L.3.3.1.2 (Part B) and Section L.3.3.1.3 (Part C), the Government provides examples responses. Can the Government please also provide an example for Section L.3.3.1.1 (Part A), to demonstrate and clarify the types of responses the Government might consider a sufficient response. | See Amendment 0002. | |
| 28 | SOO Section C.2.2.1, #2, Page 3 | SOO | For Research and Development proficiency area #2 (Transitioning of Programs through Funding Continuum), the text states "Refer to Appendix XX." Can the Government please clarify which Appendix the text is referring to? | See Amendment 0001 posted on 03.26.2021. | |
| 29 | L.3.3.1.3 | Contract | We would recommend vendors provide resumes, but to remove the signed letters of intent element. Tradtionally SMEs or non-employees do not sign letters of intent at the IDIQ level as there is no funded work for them to preform, no timeframe, no details on the defined scope of work, and in general no specific details at all. IDIQ's do not provide clarify for staff to sign and make a commitment by way of letters of intent. Thus, what are SMEs/non-employees signing up for (i.e. for a project or work that may never exist)? | See answer to Question # 5. | |
| 30 | H.1., page 15 of 90 | RFP | In the Ordering Procedures section, the government provides various examples of how a Task Order Contracting | ||
| Officer (TOCO) can order from this vehicle, however, how will the government ensure small businesses are able to fairly compete against large business concerns and receive prime contract awards without having either a separate small business track (like past OMNIBUS IDIQ vehicles) or a required government IDIQ goal for small business prime contracts? | The decision will be made at the Task Order Level and at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. See Answer to Question # 16 | ||||
| 31 | H.1., page 15 of 90 | RFP | The small business subcontracting plan is only for subcontracts and not prime contracts. How will the government at the IDIQ level ensure an equitable competative enviornemnt for small business primes to recieve prime awards? And specficially how will the government enforce vendors small business plans if a vendor is not meeting the goals they proposed within their proposal? | 1) This is a Contracting Officer Discretion at the Task Order Level. 2) The Contracting Officer will review annual subcontracting submissions through eSRS. 3) Task Order Contracting Officer Discretion. | |
| 32 | RFP, page 66. PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES. In addition to the information provided in the Past Performance Volume, the Offeror shall ensure that each reference identified completes a Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) (Attachment L-2). In the QA FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV - question 104 confirms that grants and cooperative agreements may also be submitted as past performance references. Also in that same document, question 261 and question 294 confirm CPARS can be used in lieu of PPPQs. | PPPQ | Some grants do not yield CPARS or PPPQs. Can the offeror validate grants experience by citing and/or referencing the summary of the associated published research paper as its past performance reference? If so, shall the offeror include this information in Part C, Volume III - Past Performance, or both sections? | Grants Experience should be provided through a PPPQ. | |
| 33 | L.4.2 Description of Team, page 66 | RFP Instructions | Offeror shall also provide an approximate percentage of effort, based on overall cost, that each prime/subcontractor team member/joint venture partner will contribute to the overall effort. To simplify the process, since the value of future task orders are not known and it is highly unlikely that any awardees will approach the overall stated contract ceiling, will the Government delete the statement "based on overall cost" and allow offerors to simply state the approximate percentage of effort that each team member will contribute? If not, what should the "overall cost" be based on? | See answer to Question # 13. See Amendment 0002 | |
| 34 | L.1.3.5.3 Pages Counted, page 56, and L.2.7.1 Teaming Arrangements, page 59 | RFP Instructions | Page 56 refers to "Teaming Arrangements (including mentor-protégé agreements) and letters of commitment" and page 59 states "all Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Commitment". Is the Government requiring a Teaming Agreement AND a Letter of Commitment or will either document be acceptable? | Whether or not Teaming Agreement(s) and/or Letter(s) of Commitment are submitted is dependent upon the makeup and structure of the team being offered. | |
| 35 | Solicitation, L.1.2 ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS, page 55, Table L.1.2 – Proposal Organization | Technical | In Volume II – Technical, would the Government allow a 1-page introduction that Offerors could use to incorporate information (e.g., a key for addressing the Program Areas) that otherwise would be repetitive in each Proficiency Demonstration area? | See answer to Question # 9. | |
| 36 | Solicitation, L.3.3 FORMAT AND CONTENT, page 62, 1st paragraph | Technical | The Government states, “The Technical Volume shall include a Proficiency Demonstration, which is a description, in narrative form that demonstrates the Offeror’s proficiency within an individual Market Segment.” |
| Question: Would the Government please confirm that narrative contained within a table is acceptable? | See Amendment 0002. | |||
| 37 | Solicitation, L.3.3.1.3 PROFICIENCY DEMONSTRATION – PART C, page 63, 2ND paragraph | Technical | The Government states, “The Offeror shall provide evidence that the organization has current capabilities for assuring performance of this requirement. Experience shall include appropriate mix and balance of education and training of team members.” |
| Question: For each Proficiency area in Part C, would the Government accept responses to these areas being incorporated into our experience/SME responses? | Question is vague and ambiguous and the Government does not know how to answer. | |||
| 38 | Solicitation, L.4.3 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES, page 66, 1st paragraph and Q&A FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, #261 | Contract | In Q&A #261 of the draft Solicitation, the Government responded “Yes” to the question, “Since CPARs is allowed as part of the Offeror’s submission, would the Government permit the use of the CPARs in lieu of the Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) (Attachment L-2) since our government customers have already provided their ratings and feedback in the system?” |
Question: The final RFP does not reflect this response. In Section L.4.3, would the Government amend the Solicitation to reflect that either a PPPQ or CPARS may be provided for a past performance reference?
| See answer to Question # 19. | |||
| 39 | Solicitation, L.4.3 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES, page 66, 1st paragraph and Q&A FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, #261 | Contract | In Q&A #261 of the draft Solicitation, the Government responded “Yes” to the question, “Since CPARs is allowed as part of the Offeror’s submission, would the Government permit the use of the CPARs in lieu of the Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) (Attachment L-2) since our government customers have already provided their ratings and feedback in the system?” |
| Question: Does the Government want the CPARS report provided directly after the specific Attachment L-1 Present and Past Performance write-up in Volume III? | See L.4.1. | |||
| 40 | Solicitation, L.4.3 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES, page 66, 1st paragraph and L.4.4 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHANGE HISTORY, page 67, 1st paragraph | Contract | In L.4.3, the Government states, “…as well as a maximum of three (3) references each for subcontractor, other divisions, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners expected to perform aspects of the effort that are critical to the overall success within a Market Segment. Critical is defined as the name of the subcontractor, other divisions, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners stated in the Self-Scoring Worksheet.” |
In L.4.4, the Government states, “To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of the Offeror for the past five (5) years and also include a “roadmap” for all team members identified in a Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture for their efforts.”
| Question: If a Subcontractor does not meet the “definition” of critical (i.e., not listed in the Self-Scoring Worksheet), please confirm that an Organization Structure Change History is not required for that Subcontractor. | Confirmed. References, consent letters, roadmaps, and documents pertaining to past performance are restricted to only those companies listed on the Self-Scoring Worksheet. If a Subcontractor does not meet the "definition" of critical, then an Organizational Structure Change History is not required for that Subcontractor. This restriction does not apply to the Small Business Subcontractor Plan, Small Business Commitment Proposal, when describing Teaming Arrangements, and Government Office Information. | |||
| 41 | Solicitation, M.2.2. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL, page 83, paragraph 2, and Section L.3.3.2 SELF-SCORING WORKSHEET, page 64, Self-Scoring Level Definitions Table | Contract | Section M.2.2 of the Solicitation provides that the Government will validate each offeror’s proficiency demonstration scores and, “If the scores cannot be validated for any Part of a Proficiency Demonstration, the Offeror will receive a score of zero (0) for that Part.” |
Section L.3.3.2 provides the self-scoring criteria that require offerors to make judgments that are inherently subjective. For example, to achieve a Highest Score in the Part A Proficiency Demonstration, the criteria include “Fit Outstandingly well in the Proficiency Area” and “very relevant to the SOO Program Areas.” The criteria for an Above Normal Score (upper range) include “Fits well in Proficiency Area” and “relevant to SOO Program Areas.” Whether an offeror fits “outstandingly well” or “well” or whether an offeror is “very relevant” or “relevant” ultimately require a subjective judgment. It is unreasonable, for example, to reduce a contractor’s score from an 8 to a 0 based on a subjective finding of “relevant” vs of “very relevant,” particularly where the Government’s own assessment would result in a score of a 7.
| Question: Will the Government revise Section M.2.2 to provide: “The Government will validate these scores based on information provided by the Offeror in their Proficiency Demonstration. The Government may adjust an Offeror’s scores based on the Government’s assessment of a Proficiency Demonstration.” | The Government will not revise RFP Section M.2.2 concerning validation. If the Government cannot validate the Offeror's score based on the information provided in their Proficiency Demonstration per Proficiency Area, then that specific score will become a zero. The Government will not adjust the score (up or down) other than zero. It is very important that the Offeror score themselves accurately in accordance with criteria provided in RFP Sections L and M. | |||
| 42 | Attachment L-1, Item 6, and M.2.3, page 87, 1st paragraph/bullet | Technical | Attachment L-1, Item 6 states, “Illustrate how your experience on this referenced contract/program relates to the scope of your proposed effort on this solicitation. Please utilize the proficiency areas within the Market Segment identified in the SOO as your point of comparison.” |
Section M.2.3, page 87 states, “For scope, each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort as found in the SOO for the specific Market Segment that the Offeror submitted a proposal under. Scope is defined as subject matter that is relevant to the Program Areas stated in the SOO.”
| Question: Due to the differences regarding Scope between Attachment L-1, Item 6, and M.2.3, page 87, will the Government please review and make the changes to ensure consistency to either Attachment L-1, Item 6, or M.2.3, page 87? | See Amendment 0002. | |||
| 43 | Attach_1_SOO.PDF.pdf, page 3, Section C.2.2.1, 5th paragraph | Contract | The Government states, “Transitioning of Programs though Funding Continuum, to include, but not limited to: Accomplishments in utilizing 6.1 through 6.7 (Refer to Appendix XX) research funding especially in applied research efforts and transitioning through advanced development.” |
| Question: Would the Government provide Appendix XX that is referenced? | See Amendment 0001 | |||
| 44 | QA+FOR+DRAFT+RFP+POSTING+OMNIBUS+IV, Q&A #15 and other Q&A #s | Draft RFP Q&A | In the draft solicitation Q&A, there are numerous questions that refer Q&A #15. Question #15 has the response, “See Answer to Question # 15.” |
Question: Please provide a response to Q&A #15?
| See Amendment 0001. | |||
| 45 | QA+FOR+DRAFT+RFP+POSTING+OMNIBUS+IV, Q&A #15 and other Q&A #s | Draft RFP Q&A | In the draft solicitation Q&A, there are numerous questions that refer Q&A #15. Question #15 has the response, “See Answer to Question # 15.” |
| Question: Will the Government ensure that the numerous questions referring to Q&A #15 is correct or provide the correct referenced Q&A #? | See Amendment 0001. | |||
| 46 | Solicitation Section L.6.1 and Section M.2.5 | Contract | These two references require clarification. The Instructions at L.6.1 state "the Offeror’s proposed FFP Labor Rate for the Project Manager III shall be executable at the Base and Option Ordering Periods and will serve as the ceiling price that may be charged at the FFP Task Order level", while the Evaluation Factors state "If awarded an IDIQ contract, |
the Project Manager III Labor Rate for the Base and Option Ordering Periods shall serve as the ceiling price for any FFP task orders that contain a requirement for a Project Manager III"
| Please confirm that rate offered for the Project Manager III will be the ceiling rate specifically for the Project Manager III labor category, where proposed, and not the ceiling rate for other labor categories proposed for tasks under this IDIQ contract. | Confirmed. | ||||
| 47 | Solicitation Section L.6.1 and Section M.2.5 | Contract | When government says the rate is a ceiling ‘price’, does the government mean ceiling ‘rate’? If not, can the government please explain the ceiling relative to how it impacts future FFP TO quotes? | See Amendment 0002. | |
| 48 | Solicitation Section L.6.1 and Section M.2.5 | Contract | When bidding on future FFP Task Orders, can the government please explain how the capped LCAT rate applies? | See Note 1 Under M.2.5. | |
| 49 | Solicitation Section L.6.1 and Section M.2.5 | Contract | Can the government please confirm that the capped rate does not, in any way, apply to T&M, LH, or CP TOs? | Confirmed. | |
| 50 | Solicitation Section L.5.1 SB Participation | Contract | Will the government confirm for this solicitation per the SB Participation table in section L.5.1 that subcontracting with Historically Black Colleges & Universities will be included under Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) subcontracting spend? Please confirm. | Confirmed. | |
| 51 | Section L.1.3.7 Electronic Delivery | Contract | Because this is a large and complex pursuit, will the Government please consider an extension to May 21, 2021? | Noted. | |
| 52 | Solicitation Section L.4.3 | Technical | Offerors may use the same present and past performance references, where applicable, across multiple Market Segments and/or with Prime/Subcontractor submissions. To minimize the workload on the Government POCs, when the same reference is being used across Market Segments and Prime/Subcontractor capacity, will the Government please allow the contracting agency/customer to submit only one Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) for the same past performance reference submitted? | See Amendment 0002. | |
| 53 | QA for Draft RFP Posting OMNIBUS IV | Technical | Will the Government please update the final solicitation to reflect that CPARS can be utilized in lieu of the Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) as referenced in the Q&A question #261? | See answer to Question # 19. | |
| 54 | Section L.4.3 Present and Past Performance References | Technical | "Completed PPQs shall be emailed in PDF format…" | ||
| Would the Government consider allowing PPQs to be submitted in Microsoft Word OR PDF format? | No. | ||||
| 55 | Attachement L-1: Present and Past Performance Information Form | Technical | ATTACHMENT L-1 instructs respondents to utilize “the proficiency areas within the Market Segment identified in the SOO” to write to Scope. And, Section M.2.3 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE defines Complexity as “how intricate the subject matter is relevant to performance across one or more Proficiency Areas and/or Market Segments in the SOO.” |
| Are the Proficiency Areas applicable to BOTH Scope and Complexity, and if so, how are the responses under Items 6 and 7 of ATTACHMENT 1 to be answered? Additionally, do these responses also need to include a reference to the Program Areas and Market Segments? | See Amendment 0002. | ||||
| 56 | M.2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance | Technical | For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort (Market Segment) regardless of whether the prime or a subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is proposed to do the work. Will the Government please confirm that the prime contractor relevancy rating will be calculated based upon the aggregate of the three efforts submitted? | Confirmed. | |
| 57 | Section L.3.3.2 Self-Scoring Worksheet | Technical | When the offeror writes to proficiencies in each market segment, is the expectation that a unique team member writes to a specific proficiency area or can proficiency area write ups be a blended team description to show the strength of the team? The way the RFP is written appears to diminish the power of the team that the prime has assembled by allowing only a single team member (whether that be the prime team member or one sub team member) to respond to each proficiency area within a market segment. | See answer to Question # 4. | |
| 58 | Section L.3.3.2 Self-Scoring Worksheet | Technical | For the self-scoring worksheets, if a blended team is used to describe a unique proficiency area in a market segment, should each team member in the description submit their own self scoring worksheet for the proficiency area in which they are referenced? | See answer to Question # 4. | |
| 59 | HT001121R0004 OMNIBUS IV 4 RFP, | ||||
| L.6.0 VOLUME V – PRICE | Price | The RFP states on page 69: "The Offeror shall clearly identify the Market Segment in which the Offeror is submitting a proposal. An Offeror may not submit a Price Volume for more than one (1) Market Segment. If an Offeror chooses to submit a proposal for more than one (1) Market Segment, then a separate proposal shall be submitted for each. If an Offeror is selected to receive an award in more than one Market Segment, the Offeror will only receive one (1) IDIQ contract." |
| Can an offeror submit a price volume for more than one (1) market segment? | No. L.6.0 states, "An Offeror may not submit a Price Volume for more than one (1) Market Segment." If proposing in more than one Market Segment, an Offeror must submit a separate proposal and each proposal will be evaluated on its own merit. | ||
| 60 | HT001121R0004 OMNIBUS IV 4 RFP, |
M.1.1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS;
L.4.0 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE;
L.5.0 VOLUME IV – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT;
L.6.0 VOLUME V – PRICE
Price The RFP states on page 82: "The Government will conduct the evaluation of proposals by Market Segment. If an Offeror submitted a proposal for more than one (1) Market Segment, each proposal will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis." However, in sections L.4.0 Volume III - Past Performance (page 66), L.5.0 Volume IV - Small Business Participation Commitment (page 67), & L.6.0 Volume V – Price (page 69) state, that an Offeror may not submit a Volume for more than one (1) Market Segment.
| If an Offeror is bidding more than one Market Segment, does the Offeror need to submit all five (5) volumes for each Market Segment? (e.g., If an Offeror is submitting proposals for all four (4) market segments; all four (4) proposal responses will include a Volume I, II, III, IV, & V)? | Yes, confirmed. Each proposal must stand alone and will be evaluated individually. | ||||
| 61 | Attachment 3 – Pricing Sheet “Contractor Proposed Labor Categories and rates will be submitted in supplemental pricing sheet.” | Price | Is the supplemental pricing sheet available and part of the submission due April 28, 2021? If so, please provide a copy. If not, please advise when this supplemental pricing sheet will be made available. | Please refer to original/initial link to the RFP for all attachments and documents available for download. The RFP, amendments and other postings will each have a unique URL. | |
| 62 | L.3.3 Format and Content pg. 62 of 90 NOTE: ….The offeror shall when completing the Self-Scoring Worksheet, score themselves for every Proficiency Area listed, even if the Offeror did not submit a Proficiency Demonstration for all Proficiency Areas. (For example, those Proficiency Areas that are not applicable to the Offeror, the Offeror shall fill in those Proficiency Areas with a “0.”) | RFP Instructions | Please verify that the Offeror and its subcontractors, if they have the capability for all Proficiency Areas in the Market Segment, will fill in all lines of the Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 4), and thus there will be no 0s in the Proficiency Areas. | Verified. See answer to Question # 41. | |
| 63 | L.3.3.2 Self Scoring Worksheet pg. 63 of 90 4. If the answer to above is Subcontractor or Teaming Partner, then fill in their name. |
| In the Q&A for the Draft RFP, the following directions were provided on Question 27: "If the Proficiency Area Parts A, B, AND C are (1) for the prime, then fill in column C with “prime” and leave column D blank; or (2) for the sub/partner, then fill in column C with “sub” or “partner” and place the name of the sub or partner in column D. All parts A, B, and C for one Proficiency Area shall be for the prime; or all parts A, B, and C for one Proficiency Area shall be for the sub. Mixing of prime and sub for parts A, B, and C for one Proficiency Area is not allowed. Mixing for a specific part is not allowed.” | RFP Instructions | This Offeror requests that the Government allow the presentation of more than one company’s capabilities within each proficiency area because (1) the M.2.2.1 evaluation factors incorporate scoring based upon performance risk and (2) we believe that one company’s capabilities are an insufficient indicator of the team’s full strength and ability to ensure performance success. | See answer to Question # 4. |
| 64 | L.4.3 Present and Past Performance References, |
| Item 9 of the RFP's inline version of the Attachment L-2/Present and Past Performance Questionnaire indicates “Please submit the completed questionnaire … prior to 1 PM EST MARCH 12, 2021.” However, the separate Attachment L-2 file provided with the RFP indicates "Please submit the completed questionnaire to dha.ncr.cod-fc.mbx.dha-acq-omnibus-iv@mail.mil prior to 1 PM EST APRIL 28, 2021. | RFP Instructions | Please confirm that past performance questionnaires are due to the Government, as indicated in the separate Attachment L-2 file, by 1 PM EST APRIL 28, 2021. | Confirmed. | |||
| 65 | RFP L.1.2/ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/ | |||||
| NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS; Table L.1.2/Proposal Organization pg. 54 of 90 “2 pages per Proficiency Demonstration Part”. | RFP Instructions | Will the Government reconsider its 2-page limit per proficiency area part? Will the government provide an overall allocation of 6 pages per proficiency area so that the Offeror have sufficient flexibility to use page count as needed to appropriately address the Government's request for information.? | See answer to Question # 9. | |||
| 66 | RFP L.1.3.7/Electronic Delivery on pg. 57 of 90 states "Offerors shall include formulas and working links (within the workbook), and refrain from hidden columns and field protection (lock), to the maximum extent practicable. However, QA FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, Question #218 states "RFP requirement for formulas will be deleted.” | RFP Instructions | The requirement for formulas remains in the final RFP, although according to Question #218, it was to be deleted. Please clarify. | See Amendment 0002. | ||
| 67 | RFP L.4.3/PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES pg. 66 of 90 QA FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, Question #261 Question: “Since CPARs is allowed as part of the Offeror’s submission, would the Government permit the use of the CPARs in lieu of the Present and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) (Attachment L-2) since our government customers have already provided their ratings and feedback in the system?” |
Response: “ Yes” QA FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, Question #294 Question: “Instead of emailing the Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 2) to the COR and back to the Contracting Officer can we submit the CPARS as part of the proposal?”
Response: “Yes.”
| RFP Instructions | The RFP does not state that a CPARS can be included in the proposal in lieu of a PPPQ. If that is the government’s intention, can the government please update the RFP? | See answer to Question # 38. | |||
| 68 | Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors 33 of 90 Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors | Contract | In the case the Offeror has certified in SAM.Gov to any clause listed after 52.204-8 (d) of in SAM.Gov, will the government confirm that the Offeror can simply provide a statement that SAM.Gov is current and up-to-date? | If all identified Representation and Certifications and acknowledged statements provided in Section K and L are provided in SAM and in the offereor SAM Record, Confirm only the acknowledgement is required. | |
| 69 | RFP L.6.2/ GOVERNMENT ASSUMPTIONS page 69 states “…(equivalent experience means a Bachelor’s Degree with fifteen (15) years of experience)”. However, the QA FOR DRAFT RFP POSTING OMNIBUS IV, Question #198 states that “Fifteen years total relevant experience” meets the requirement as a substitute for a Master’s or Ph.D. | Technical | Please confirm that fifteen (15) years of experience meets the requirement as a substitute for a Master's or Ph.D.? | Not confirmed. See L.6.2. | |
| 70 | M.2.3 Factor 2 - Past Performance pg. 87 of 90 “For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort (Market Segment) regardless of whether the prime or subcontractor/teaming member/joint venture partner is proposed to do the work.” L.4.3 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES 66 of 90 “The Offeror shall identify a maximum of three (3) references for the prime Offeror as well as a maximum of three (3) references each for subcontractor, other divisions, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners expected to perform aspects of the effort that are critical to the overall success within a Market Segment. Critical is defined as the name of the subcontractor, other divisions, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners stated in the Self-Scoring Worksheet. | Technical | Due to evaluation criteria contained in M.2.3, will the Government please confirm that the Offeror can submit a maximum of three (3) references for the prime as well as a maximum of three (3) references each for subcontractor/teaming member/point venture partner proposed to do the work, and is not restricted to only those companies listed on the Self-Scoring Worksheet? | Confirmed. See answer to Question # 40. | |
| 71 | L.3.3.1.3 Proficiency Demonstration Part C pg. 63 of 90 Proficiency Demonstration Part C | Technical | Would the government confirm that individual SMEs whose bios are submitted under this section do not currently have to be employed by the prime or subcontractor demonstrating capabilities in the Proficiency section.? |
| Would the government confirm that the offeror must include with the proposal a letter of intent for 5 years, signed by the SME, if they are not currently employed by the prime or subcontractor? | See answer to Question # 5. | ||||
| 72 | Solicitation L.4.3 PRESENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES 66 of 90 The Offeror shall identify a maximum of three (3) references for the prime Offeror as well as a maximum of three (3) references each for subcontractor, other divisions, teaming contractors, or joint venture partners expected to perform aspects of the effort that are critical to the overall success within a Market Segment. | Technical | Will the government confirm, a prime can use the core competencies of its subsidiaries (divisions) under Part A. | See answer to Question # 4. | |
| 73 | SOO C.2.1 – Program Areas pg1 Infectious Diseases – Includes but is not limited to, medical readiness, vaccines, biology, prophylaxis/treatment drugs, diagnostics/prognostics, vector control, medical C4ISR, global and emerging disease countermeasures, and OCONUS field surveys (such as in Peru, Egypt, Cambodia, Italy, Singapore and Thailand) | Technical | What demographics would the contractor be reaching out to in these areas? | This will be determined at the Task Order Level. | |
| 74 | Pg. 83, M.2.2 Factor 1 – Technical , The solicitation states “The Government will validate these scores based on the information provided by the Offeror in their Proficiency Demonstration. If the scores cannot be validated in any Part of a Proficiency Demonstration, the Offeror will receive a score of zero (0) for that Part.” | Technical | Will the government please clarify the statement as it relates to when an offeror’s self-assessment scoring sheet reflects a score of X (between 1 an 8) but during the evaluation process the government does not concur with the offerors self-assessment score based on the information provided? Does this mean the offeror’s score will then be rated as “0” or will the government adjust the score (up or down) to align with the government’s evaluation? | See answer to Question # 41. | |
| 75 | Pg. 83, M.2.2 Factor 1 – Technical , The solicitation states “The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal by Market Segment”. | Technical | Will the government please confirm that all (“each”) responses will be evaluated in their entirety? Additionally will the government please clarify the evaluation process as it relates to the offerors total score? Will the government start with the highest scoring responses and then proceed to the lowest based on scores? | All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. | |
| 76 | Solicitation Page 55, L.1.3.5.1 | Contract | Can the Government clarify what is meant by the “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.”? | Each Volume shall be separately and sequentially numbered. | |
| 77 | Solicitation Page 62, L.3.3 | Contract | This paragraph states the Technical Volume shall include a Proficiency Demonstration, which is a description, in narrative form that demonstrates the Offeror’s proficiency within an individual Market Segment. Does narrative form allow for the use of Tables utilizing 10 pt font that include our descriptions? | See answer to question # 36. | |
| 78 | Solicitation Page 66, L.4.3 | Contract | Are Offeror’s subsidiaries with their own CAGE code to be treated as subcontractors? In the self-scoring worksheet, if an Offeror’s subsidiary is identified, do we list them as Sub? | If an offeror subsidiary has their own cage code they shall be treated as a Subcontractor. | |
| 79 | Solicitation Page 66, L.4.2, 1st paragraph | Contract | RFP Section L.4.2 states if there are additional subcontractors which are not anticipated to play a role presently, but may be utilized in the future, the projected role of these subcontractors shall be clearly addressed. This information will be utilized to determine relevancy for the subcontract referenced. Section M.2.3 defines relevancy for past performance references. |
Question: What information is used to determine a subcontractors’ relevancy if past performance references are not provided? We can only provide subcontractors’ past performance references if they are included in our self-scoring worksheet which limits how many different subcontractors’ past performances can be submitted. Is the subcontractor information in our matrix and how they will be utilized in the future the only aspects being used to determine subcontractor relevancy? Please clarify.
| See answer to Question # 40. | ||||
| 80 | Solicitation Page 67, L.4.4 | Contract | If the Offeror has no Organizational Structure Change History to report, can we simply insert “N/A” as our response for this section? | Yes. |
| 81 | Solicitation Page 68, SB Participation Table | Contract | Is the total SB % commitment 32% and the SDB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBZone are all subpercentages within the 32%, OR is the total SB % commitment 32% plus an additional 16% (added up % of SDB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBZone) for a total of 48%? | The total SB commitment of 32% is the minimum total commitment. |
| 82 | Solicitation Page 69, L.5.2 | Contract | Please confirm a Small Business does not have to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | Confirmed. |
| 83 | Solicitation Page 73, Attachment L-1, #7 and page 87, 2nd paragraph | Contract | The definition of “scope” on page 87 is “subject matter relevant to the Program Areas in the SOO”. Item #6 of Attachment L-1, referencing scope, says to utilize the proficiency areas. Please clarify the discrepancy between the definition on page 87 and the instructions on Attachment L-1, Item #6. | See Amendment 0002 |
| 84 | Solicitation Page 73, Attachment L-1, #7 and page 87, 2nd paragraph | Contract | Item #7 of Attachment L-1 says to utilize the complexity “areas” identified in section M.2.3 as a point of comparison. What are the complexity “areas”? | See Amendment 0002 |
| 85 | Solicitation Page 73, Attachment L-1, #7 and page 87, 2nd paragraph | Contract | On pg. 87, complexity is defined as how intricate the subject matter is relevant to performance across one or more Proficiency Areas in the SOO. This is essentially what Item #6 requests as well on page 73, Att. L-1, as it says to utilize the proficiency areas in the SOO as a point of comparison. Can the gov’t clarify the difference between Items #6 and #7? We respectfully request one of these items be removed from Attachment L-1. | See answer to question # 55. |
| 86 | Solicitation Page 75, Attachment L-2, paragraph 9.0 | Contract | Please clarify the due date required for the submission of the completed PPPQ. It currently reads March 12, which is prior to the RFP release (March 17). | See Amendment 0002. |
| 87 | Solicitation Page 87, M.2.3 (bottom of page) | Contract | RFP Past Performance Evaluation Criteria states to arrive at a past performance confidence assessment, the evaluation team will consider (3rd bullet) “The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor/teaming member/join venture partner is contributing to the effort”. Can you please explain what is meant by this? | This is one of four considerations that the past performance evaluation team will consider when arriving at an overall past performance confidence assessment. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .