QTA0016AWA0001_-_Q R__5.pdf

VETS 2 GWAC

QTA0016AWA0001

QUESTION AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT #5

Thank you for your interest in VETS 2.

In addressing questions it is the Government’s position that if the solicitation’s position is self-evident, the response to a question may simply be that the solicitation already addresses the matter in the manner the Government intended for it to be addressed, or “The solicitation is clear”.

While the Government may include one or more specific solicitation passages in a response to a question, interested parties are reminded that section L.3 of the solicitation states, “Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation document, including all attachments in Section J, prior to submitting questions and/or preparing an offer. Omission of any information from the proposal submission requirements may result in rejection of the offer.”

Questions were not extensively edited for grammar, punctuation or spelling. Not every question is shown. Only those questions, or portions of questions, that were deemed frequently asked and/or those that were deemed to benefit the procurement process are shown.

Questions and responses are organized into topic areas shown below. Interested parties stand to benefit from reviewing all statements, questions, and responses.

• Other

• Past Performance

• Proposal Submission

• Relevant Experience

• Risk Assessment

• Systems, Certifications, and Clearances

This is the fifth Question and Response Document. The first was posted on May 2, 2016. The second was posted on May 11, 2016. The third was posted on May 20, 2016. The fourth was posted on May 27, 2016. Additional Question and Response Documents will be posted to FBO as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the offerors to periodically check the solicitation on FBO for more information.

Other

Q&R # Question Response

5.1

Our company recently underwent a name change. All of our evaluation elements remain in our previous name. Should we submit our proposal in our old or new name?

Any offer must be submitted in the Offeror's legal name. The Offeror’s Legal Name and Address in Block 15A on the SF33 must match the information for the Offeror in SAM.GOV.

As stated in L.3.2, for any claimed evaluation element identifying a different name than that of the offeror; due to a merger, acquisition, novation, or change-of-name agreement; the offeror has the burden to establish that the claimed evaluation element should be attributed to the offeror. To do so, the offeror must provide evidence of the merger, acquisition, novation, or change-of-name agreement, as well as a justification demonstrating how the evaluation element being claimed is applicable to the offeror.

Past Performance Q&R # Question Response

5.2 Can we submit a narrative for the past

performances?

As stated in L.5.3.3, the offeror may submit a one-page narrative for each project being utilized for past performance to provide information on problems encountered on the submitted projects and the offeror’s corrective actions. This submission is not required but may be included to address past performance assessments where the majority of rating elements are below satisfactory.

5.3 Does the Government consider a rating of “satisfactory” demonstration of a positive record of past performance?

As stated in M.5.2, positive past performance is defined as each past performance example receiving a satisfactory or greater rating for the majority of rating elements.

Proposal Submission

5.4

For L.4, "Volume 6 - Cost/Price" contains the forward slash which is not allowed in folder names on Window's systems. Can we replace "/" with "&"?

As stated in L.4, Offerors may make minor adjustments to the file naming methodology so long as the resulting file names and organization are clearly understood.

The "/" may be removed or replaced with another character so long as the resulting file name is clearly understood.

5.5

Regarding the L.5.1.2 Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet, the file name convention specifies "ABC.VOL1.JP4.pdf", however should it be "ABC.VOL1.JP5.xlsx" for the correct attachment number and the file format?

This was amended in Amendment 1.

Suggest reviewing all posted amendments and Question & Response Documents.

5.6

As no cover page is requested, where can the title page markings for restriction on disclosure and use of data be included?

Concerning the markings identified in 52.215-1(e), title page markings may be made within the optional Table of Contents described in L.4.

5.7

Section L.4 provides offers proposing as part of a contractor teaming arrangement the opportunity to package their Volume 7 documents as separate DVD+R’s. Since L.5.7.1 requires Volume 7 documents to also be submitted for subcontractors in addition to contractor teaming arrangement members, we assume that subcontractors are also allowed to submit their Volume 7 documents as separate DVD+R’s?

As proposed subcontractors are one of the allowable contractor teaming arrangements identified in L.5.1.3, this allowance also applies to proposed subcontractors.

Relevant Experience

5.8

For Relevant Experience Project verification, are offeror’s permitted to include a copy of the most recent contract modification form (that identifies the contractor, Award/Effective Date and date the Contracting Officer signed) or should the originating contract award document be included.

Section L.5.2.2.1.1 identifies the verification requirements for relevant experience submissions. Suggest also reviewing the NOTE within L.3 which states, "While some sub-sections of Section L may indicate an Offeror shall provide a particular form of documentation for validation purposes, Offerors may provide additional verifiable documentation if necessary to validate any evaluation criteria being claimed."

5.9

If FPDS-NG contains complete and accurate information consistent with the information completed on the J.P-7 Relevant Experience Project Template, is a COR/COTR signature required?

The solicitation is clear. The verification requirements of L.5.2.2.1.1 (2) are only necessary if an FPDS-NG Report for the project is not available, or information within the report does not provide appropriate verification for the relevant experience project submission.

5.10

If a company's address has changed within the last five years, some FPDS records will contain the old address. Does the offeror need to provide any supporting information to validate this discrepancy with current SAM information?

As stated in L.3.1, all the evaluation elements an Offeror is claiming credit for in accordance with Section L.5., Volumes 1 through 7, must be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in Block 15A on the Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, with a corresponding CAGE Code and DUNS Number in SAM.GOV that matches the Offeror name on the SF 33, Block 15A.

A difference in address is not the same as a difference in Name, DUNS, or CAGE Code. No supporting information would need to be submitted solely for a different address within an individual FPDS-NG report.

Risk Assessment

5.11

For the purpose of the organizational risk assessment, will you accept a subcontractor that has not yet performed any work on an IDIQ?

No, for this example the offeror would be unable to claim the scoring for L.5.5.1 as each proposed subcontractor has not previously performed on a contract or order as a subcontractor to the offering prime contractor.

Systems, Certifications, and Clearances Q&R # Question Response

5.12

Since an example file name was not provided for the requirement in L.4.1 to certify that there have been no material changes to the accounting system since the last audit, are offeror’s permitted to include this statement in the file that provides the DCAA/DCMA point of contact information?

Suggest reviewing Question and Response 3.40.