Special_Notice_for_Questions_ _Responses__Release_No.2_28JUL2016.pdf

Alliant 2 GWAC Unrestricted RFP # QTA0016JCA0003 - Questions & Responses: Release # 2

Alliant 2 GWAC Unrestricted RFP

Questions & Responses (Release #2)

28 July 2016

Note to Interested Offerors: The Alliant 2 Unrestricted acquisition team provides the following questions and responses to clarify common questions and address common concerns that have arisen since the RFP issuance on 24 June 2016. The team anticipates the issuance of more questions and responses in the near future. If you have submitted questions previously, but do not see your question answered here, please do not re-submit your question, but simply wait for the next release.

Please remember to check the Alliant 2 FedBizOpps (FBO) website on a daily basis for important announcements regarding the RFP. As of the date and time of this Q&A FBO posting, ten (10) “Special Notices” of Amendments to the RFP have been posted at the Alliant 2 Unrestricted FBO portal (www.fedbizopps.gov) which address errors and other inconsistencies in the RFP. Revised templates of RFP worksheets are also available at the FBO site.

Please note that the Government cannot furnish specific advice on individual offers, respond to questions which are outside the scope of the RFP, questions which are answered in the plain language of the RFP, or respond to questions which have been addressed in previous communications. Offerors are encouraged to thoroughly review the RFP, the Special Notices of Amendments to the RFP, and all posted Questions and Responses regarding the RFP for guidance in addressing questions or concerns.

Question and Response topics

● GENERAL

● SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

● RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

● COST ACCOUNTING AUDITS & TECHNICAL CERTIFICATIONS

● COST/PRICING

● AWARD

GENERAL

QUESTION 1: Has the Government established an estimate of the minimum points necessary to receive an award?

RESPONSE: No, there is no minimum point total and the Government does not intend to establish one.

QUESTION 2: Will the Government post a list of the Offerors who attended the pre-proposal conference?

RESPONSE: No.

QUESTION 3: How may an Offeror access information about the Alliant 1 GWAC in order to better prepare its Alliant 2 proposal?

RESPONSE: For information on the first Alliant GWAC (“Alliant 1”), please visit www.gsa.gov/gwacs.

QUESTION 4: Please confirm that Offerors can submit a Performance Work Statement (PWS) instead of a Statement of Work (SOW) where a contract only provides a PWS and not a SOW.

RESPONSE: A PWS is acceptable. For non-federal contracts, i.e. commercial and state/local contracts, which may not follow federal government nomenclature, the equivalent document to a PWS or SOW will be acceptable.

QUESTION 5: Where do the DFAR Certs and Reps go in the proposal?

RESPONSE: The ATTACHMENT J-1 - DOD REQUIRED PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES are not included with the Offeror’s proposal. They are applicable at the Task Order level specific to DoD requirements.

QUESTION 6: RFP Section L.3.2 requires that an acquiring party establish evidence of the merger and justification that the element is applicable. What evidence is acceptable? What justification is required if the acquirer has full control of the acquiree?

RESPONSE: An official document signed by all parties (i.e. modification signed by an authorized government/corporate official) acknowledging the merger, novation or name change to the Order. The Offeror, as named on the document, must have performed a portion of the project to claim the credits. See Response to Question # 26 on FBO’s “Questions & Responses:

Release # 1” dated 24 July 2016 for additional information.

QUESTION 7: If there is no IDV file in FPDS for an older IDIQ like ANSWER, is a non-FPDS record such as an award form acceptable for multiple award IDIQ validation?

RESPONSE: The IDV information for the ANSWER GWAC is available in the FPDS-NG. The EZ Search feature of FPDS allows for searching for the contract number and the word GWAC to locate the IDV information.

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

QUESTION 8: Do SB Primes on A2 Unrestricted have to submit a SB SubK Plan or does the limitation on SubK apply?

RESPONSE: No, a Subcontracting Plan is only required by Other than Small Business. RFP Section I 52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING would apply to the Small Business Offeror.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

QUESTION 9: L.5.2.2 and L.5.2.3 states “No project may be used more than once” within the Leading Edge Technology (LET) Relevant Experience and PSC Relevant Experience. (a) If a Project is used for a PSC/LET Relevant Experience, can it be used for any other PSC/LET Relevant Experience credit? (b) Does the term "Project" refer to the actual Task Order / Order Number rather than the multiple or single award IDIQ Contract reference?

RESPONSE: A Project for a PSC can only be used once and not again for other PSCs. A Project for a PSC can be used only one time for one LET, and cannot be used again for any other LET.

“Project” is defined in the RFP Section L.5.2.1. A Project can be a single Task Order with citing to the Order Number, or, if a “collection of Task Orders” under a multiple or single award IDIQ Contract, cite the IDIQ Contract Number.

QUESTION 10: If an Offeror is using a "collection of task orders" placed under a single award IDIQ or single award BPA as a PSC Group relevant experience project, and no CPARs are available, will one J.P-5_Past_Performance_Rating_Form-A2 suffice to summarize all task orders?

RESPONSE: Yes.

QUESTION 11: For a collection of task orders under a single award IDIQ or BPA, may an Offeror generate a custom ad hoc report rather than provide documentation for each relevant Task Order?

RESPONSE: No.

QUESTION 12: May a “logical follow-on” contract that succeeds an original contract but features a different contract number be used to reach a threshold?

RESPONSE: No.

QUESTION 13: If a contract contains both CONUS and OCONUS elements, may an Offeror use that contract in its submission for a foreign work project?

RESPONSE: Yes, see conditions in RFP Section L.5.2.2.6 citing Foreign work projects.

QUESTION 14: Will the government accept a signed PSC template (by the CO/COR) and signed past performance (by the CO/COR) as substantial evidence in lieu of an CPARS?

RESPONSE: No. If a CPARS or PPIRS is not available on any PSC Project, the Offeror should provide a signed J.P-5 Past Performance Rating Form.

QUESTION 15: Is a project under a GSA Federal Supply Schedule IT 70 contract considered an acceptable Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract (MA/IDIQ) for the purposes of additional scoring under RFP Section L.5.2.2.5 PSC Group Relevant Experience - Fair Opportunity Task Order Award Against a MA/IDIQ Contract?

RESPONSE: No. Only task order awards resulting from a FAR 16.505 fair opportunity process will be acceptable for this evaluation element.

QUESTION 16: Why does a small business have the potential to score points with relevant experience through the use of small business subcontracting but an "other than small business" does not have that same potential?

RESPONSE: This approach aligns with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, SEC. 867. JOINT VENTURING AND TEAMING specific to Small Business teaming.

QUESTION 17: May an Offeror use work done as a subcontractor for PSC or LET relevant experience if it performed 100% of the work?

RESPONSE: No. Refer to RFP Section L.5.2.1 which states “All project work must have been performed as the Prime Contractor (or the allowances at L.5.1.4 and L.5.1.5.1).”

QUESTION 18: Will GSA accept DoD SOWs/PWSs that are marked “(UNCLASSIFIED) FOR

OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)”?

RESPONSE: Yes, as long as they are not redacted SOWs/PWSs.

QUESTION 19: Inasmuch as a purchase order for a product is a valid contract which meets the other RFP requirements for a given PSC / LET, can it be submitted for credit under that PSC / LET for Alliant 2?

RESPONSE: No. Alliant 2 is primarily an IT services GWAC. Therefore, submitting a purchase order solely for products is not acceptable.

QUESTION 20: Per RFP Section L.5.2.3, if a project has less than 1 year of performance and has an Interim CPAR, Final CPAR, or Award Fee Determination exception, how should this documentation be submitted to verify it meets the LET Relevant Experience requirements?

RESPONSE: The submission requirement is same as referenced in RFP Section L.5.2.3.1 Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience Project Submission.

QUESTION 21: The list of contract award documentation types include a number of specified items for each (e.g. for 1449 Block 3 Award/Effective Date, Block 31c Date of Signature). For SF 1449, if the CO did not complete Block 3 Award/Effective date (it was left blank) but the date of signature and period of performance are clearly documented in the SF 1449, will GSA accept it as compliant documentation?

RESPONSE: Yes.

QUESTION 22: For the J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template, and the J.P- 3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template, may a verification signature be provided by an individual who no longer has cognizance over the project (i.e., the individual has moved on to a new position in the Government, or left Government entirely)?

RESPONSE: No, a current Contracting Officer/ Contracting Officer Representative or other recognized official with cognizance over the project needs to sign.

QUESTION 23: Will the Government accept a SOW/PWS for verification instead of the signature of a cognizant Government official on the J.P-2 or J.P-3?

RESPONSE: Signatures are generally required for J.P-2. The only exception that a signature is not required on the J.P-2 is when the FPDS-NG Report is Available, Complete and Accurate.

Signatures are required for ALL J.P-3 templates.

QUESTION 24: In Section L.5.2.3.1.1 the RFP states "NOTE: If Attachment J.P-3 ... requires a signature". In what circumstances does the J.P-3 require a signature?

RESPONSE: Attachment J.P-3 templates always require a CO/COR signature pursuant to L.5.2.3.1.1 “For each Leading Edge Technology Project claimed, offerors must submit Attachment J.P-3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template.” This will also be clarified in Special Notice of Amendment #10.

QUESTION 25: Is the "index" referenced at L.5.2.2.1.1 (PSC) and L.5.2.3.1.1 (LET) to be included within the J.P-2 Part III Project Description (PSC) and J.P-3 Part III Project Description

(LET)?

RESPONSE: The index need not be included in the J.P-2 or J.P-3, Part III Project Description, although it is acceptable to do so. The index may be included with the SOW/PWS to reference the relevant sections of the SOW/PWS.

QUESTION 26: Regarding the verification documentation required for the PSC and LET Relevant Experience Submissions: is a complete copy of the SOW/PWS required? Or only the excerpts relevant to provide evidence of relevancy?

RESPONSE: The complete document is required.

QUESTION 27: For the J.P-2, Relevant Experience (PSC Group) Project Template, and the J.P- 3, Relevant Experience (Leading Edge Technology) Project Template, please confirm if GSA will provide a cover page to help orient CO/COR as well as justify the signature requests that we will be making in support of the Alliant 2 Offer?

RESPONSE: No. We suggest that the Offeror point the client to the A2 RFP Section that details what they are signing.

QUESTION 28: If a project being submitted for the Leading Edge Technology Relevant Experience has an accurate FPDS report and current CPAR report, will the government consider removing the requirement for Attachment J.P-3 to be signed by the Contracting Officer?

RESPONSE: No. A completed Attachment J.P-3 with a signature is always required. No exceptions. See all subsections under Section L.5.2.3

QUESTION 29: In cases for our DoD customers can the Verification of LET Relevant Experience J.P-3 be signed by the Senior Agency Program Director in charge?

RESPONSE: No, only a cognizant CO or COR can sign the verification.

QUESTION 30: At L.5.2.3.1.1(b), the RFP seeks "Copy of original contract award document, this may include the following:" and then lists a number of examples of award documentation.

Please verify that only one example of a contract award document listed in L.5.2.3.1.1(b) is required as proof of award for a given project.

RESPONSE: Yes, only one from the list of examples is required. The copy of the award document should be included with the signed J.P-2 and J.P-3, and the SOW for verifying the project’s PSC/LET.

QUESTION 31: If a client/customer does not use contract numbers or identifiers, will the Government accept “N/A” within the J.P-2 / J.P-3 form if a contract number does not exist?

RESPONSE: No, it should not be marked with an “N/A.” If a contract number does not exist, the Offeror should provide an identifier for purposes of cross referencing the project to other supporting documents.

QUESTION 32: May an Offeror include marketing materials describing commercial solutions as part of supporting documentation for PSC/LET submissions?

RESPONSE: No.

QUESTION 33: A) If an Agency does not report funding actions to FPDS, and B) they do not file CPARs or PPIRS reports, and C) they have a standing policy that they do not sign any forms for past performance, is there an alternative way an Offeror present verification?

RESPONSE: No. All required documents stated in the Official RFP must be provided.

QUESTION 34: Are credit and points allowed for Independent/Quasi-Federal agencies?

RESPONSE: Yes, projects from Independent/Quasi-Federal agencies may be used to claim credit for scoring elements.

QUESTION 35: May a corporate official from the commercial organization sign off on a Relevant Experience PSC / LET Project Template?

RESPONSE: Yes. Refer to RFP Section L.5.2.2.1.1 (PSC) and L5.2.3.1.1 (LET).

QUESTION 36: Does the Government want Offerors to provide only the SF 1449, SF 26, etc.

(just the form itself), or the award document in its entirety with all of the continuation pages?

RESPONSE: The Offeror must provide all the award documents that will be used to validate the claimed credit. The Offeror must provide an index to, and identify by highlighting in yellow, those specific written passages in the SOW that support the claim of having performed the

PSC/LET.

QUESTION 37: Is it acceptable for an Offeror to yellow-highlight relevant text contained in the FPDS and contract award documentation to assist the Government in reviewing the content?

RESPONSE: Yes. The Offeror is free to exercise its discretion presenting the information so as to aid the evaluator as long as it conforms with the instructions of the RFP.

QUESTION 38: Would the Government clarify the dividing line between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomic Computing (AC)?

RESPONSE: The definitions of AC and AI are adequately defined in the RFP Section J.P-4.

Autonomics is the ability to control a solution, as instructed by programmatic rules, without intervention while Artificial Intelligence learns from programmatic experience to create those rules independent of input or current rule. An Offeror should provide a narrative that best describes the scope service that fits the LET, and the evaluator will evaluate the justification for reasonableness.

J.P-10 FPDS SAMPLE CROSSWALK

QUESTION 39: Please confirm that the verification method for a cost-reimbursement contract is the 'Type of Contract' data element in FPDS-NG, and that is the only way I can earn points?

RESPONSE: Yes.

QUESTION 40: On the FPDS report to verify Task Order Against a Multiple Award Federal Government Contract, in the case of a task order against a multiple-award contract, please confirm the Offeror would highlight both the IDV ID (task order number) and the Referenced IDV ID (master contract number).

RESPONSE: Yes.

QUESTION 41: Please confirm the "Total Period of Performance" is documented using the "Effective Date" from the FDPS Award Document as the begin, and the "Est. Ultimate Completion Date" from the most recent FPDS modification document for ongoing tasks, and "Completion Date" for completed projects.

RESPONSE: The determination of the “Total period of performance” is based on the following:

1. COMPLETED PROJECTS: Effective Date (Start) and Completion Date (End) 2 .ON-GOING PROJECTS: Effective Date (Start) and Estimated Ultimate Completion Date (End)

COST ACCOUNTING AUDITS & TECHNICAL CERTIFICATIONS

QUESTION 42: Does the Offeror have to have an approved DCAA/DCMA Audited Accounting System to submit a proposal on the Alliant 2 Unrestricted GWAC?

RESPONSE: No. It is merely one scoring element.

QUESTION 43: May cost-plus contracts count towards PSC/Cost Reimbursement scoring for contract types of T&M, FFP, or mixed contract types in FPDS?

RESPONSE: No. The FPDS must be coded as a cost contract type.

COST/PRICING

QUESTION 44: How would you recommend we structure our pricing under Alliant 2 in comparison?

RESPONSE: The Government cannot advise an Offeror on how to best submit its proposal.

Refer to RFP Section L.5.5.2 Cost/Price Methodology and Instructions.

QUESTION 45: Will the cost/price template be revised to allow bidders to insert Not-to-Exceed hourly rates for each year of the period of performance?

RESPONSE: No. Per RFP Section L.5.5.2 Cost/Price Methodology and Instructions Offerors shall only provide the ceiling rates for Year 1 of the contract.

QUESTION 46: If an Offeror wishes to add a labor category to the Master Contract, must DoL data be used to support the required rate to be added to the contract?

RESPONSE: The Offeror may not add a new labor category to its proposal. Instructions for requesting new Labor Categories will be provided by the PCO post award.

QUESTION 47: Assuming an entity submits a bid using its own rates but also plans on using one or more Meaningful Relationship Entities. How should the COST AND PRICING information (rates, etc.) of each of the Meaningful Relationship Entities be listed/identified in proposals? In addition, how will the COST AND PRICING information of Meaningful Relationship Entities be evaluated for price reasonableness?

RESPONSE: The Offeror should consider team members/meaningful relationships in pricing its proposal. The Offeror’s price as measured against the J.P-6 Direct Labor Rate Ranges will be used to gauge price reasonableness.

AWARD

QUESTION 48: In the RFP Section M.3, please clarify the meaning of the second paragraph of this section. It seems to say that Offerors will be permitted the opportunity to correct omissions or errors in their submissions.

RESPONSE: No. However, the A2 PCO may require clarifications to the Offeror’s proposal that do not revise the proposal.

QUESTION 49: The Government states that the first step in the evaluation process will be to "order the offers from the highest score to the lowest score." Will the Government consider publishing the total number of Unrestricted offers it receives prior to or shortly after this process? And the number of Small Business offers?

RESPONSE: No, the number of Offerors received may not be released pre-award. Additionally, the Government has not set a minimum point score needed to be eligible for winning an Alliant 2 award.

(End of Questions & Responses: Release #2)