Question-Answer Responses.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted Aug 3, 2021

Attached to: Remotely Piloted Aircraft-Squadron Operations Center (RPA-SOC) Enterprise
Solicitation number: Not on record
Issued by: Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment 6 - Section-M 03 Aug 21.pdf	PDF	Aug 3, 2021
Attachment 5 - Section L 03 Aug 21.pdf	PDF	Aug 3, 2021

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Gov-2-Industry QA

Government								Industry Only
Q#	Doc	Pg #	Par. #	Comment/Question	KoaLani Response	ANG Response	AOC Global Response	Disposition	Comments
1	Instructions to Offerors	4	2.2	Are the number of work samples and associated page limits IAW Section L para 2.2 appropriate for this source selection? Please provide a comprehensive rationale within response.	KoaLani Response: Yes.	First, the Section L reference for this question, may be in the prior DRFP and is not contend within the most recent DRFP. Second, concerning Experience, the government may have wanted to further constrain page count. The rationale being to limit an infinite number of subcontractors for all Primes. This would also require better precision in the government’s past expertise “ask.”	Request the Government change the maximum number of work samples allowed to 15. Discussion: the previous draft RFP allowed 15 work samples and teaming agreements and proposal strategies have been established based on the 15 work sample requirement. Reducing the number at this stage in the acquiision, disadvantages offerors who are not teamed with incumbents. Teaming Agreements - recommend raising the page limit to 60 pages. A single Teaming Agreement is 15 pages. 60 pages will allow an offeror to submit four (4) Teaming Agreements.

Concur with all other page limits.

2	Evaluation Factors for Award	2	1.4	Is the proposed minimum guarantee appropriate to facilitate the Post Award Conference? Please provide a comprehensive rationale within response.	KoaLani Response: Yes.	Yes-in our case the PAC should be at Joint AFB Langley. We assume the PAC will remain at Langely. If there is a change, may we revist with the goverment?	No, recommend $10,000 to enable awardees to properly prepare for the Conference and send the appropriate number of personnel to the Conference. $5,000 will significantly limit attendance.
3	Instructions to Offerors	7	2.4.1.2	For this acquisition, IAW Section L para 2.4.1.2 (Work Sample Qualifications) the Government considers subcontractors who perform at least 25% of the work in an applicable SOC-E program area will be consider a major subcontractor. Does industry have any feedback or concerns with this percentage? Please provide a comprehensive rationale within response.	KoaLani Response: No. We recommend the Government consider subcontractors who perform at least 10% of the work in an applicable SOC-E program area be considered a major subcontractor.	No, we do not have feedback and believe this is sized appropriately and provides the correct level of latitude for Prime & subcontractor performance.	Concur with the Government requirement that a subcontractor must perform at least 25% of the work in the applicable SOC-E program area to be considered a major subcontractor. Recommend the Government NOT add any additional requirements associated with subcontractor percentage for total contract value.
4	Instructions to Offerors	Appendix D	N/A	Does industry have any comments or feedback regarding Appendix D (Self-scoring matrix)?	KoaLani Response: No comments or feedback regarding Appendix D.	No, however, we would recommend an additional column to explain the artifact provided to the government. Limit text to 250 words, per artifact.	No comments. Concur.
5	Evaluation Factors for Award	5-6	4.2	Does industry have any comments or feedback regarding the tie-breaking process outlined within Section M.	KoaLani Response: No comments or feedback regarding the tie-breaking process outlined within Section M.	We could not locate a the goverment's tie breaking process within section M of the latest DRFP.	Don't understand the question. I don't see a tie-breaking process in Section M.
6	Evaluation Factors for Award	3	3.1	Does industry have any comments or feedback regarding the small business and 8(a) pools for Evaluation Purposes Only.	KoaLani Response: As the incumbents for the current programs listed in Section L 1.1.1 ANG CFSR and L 1.1.2 SPO I&W are 8(a) firms, is it the Governments intent to re-award these programs to the incumbent 8(a)'s as direct awards iaw DFARS 206.303-1?	Can the goverment re-verify the number of task orders anticipated to be released under each pool?	Concur not to limit the number of awards in each pool. This is a very positive change.

&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page &P of &N

Industry-2-Gov QA

	FA489021R0007 Attachment 15 - Questions and Answer Matrix
	Offerors					Government Only
	Q#	Document	Pg #	Par. #	Comment/Question	Response
	1	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	7	2.4.1	Requirement: "All pages within the work samples shall be numbered. Work samples shall be provided in their original format."
Comment & Question: Some documents, in their original format, may not have page numbers and/or section numbers. Can page numbers be added, and paragraphs highlighted, in order to better direct the Government to specific locations within those files?	Paragraph 2.4.1.3 has been updated to state that page numbers may be added.
	2	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	4	1.12.4	Requirement: In accordance with paragraph 1.12.4 "Offerors shall use separate folders for each proposal volume. Offerors shall also use separate electronic files for each proposal section listed in Table 1 to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal. Exhibits, annexes, and attachments which are provided in support of a section shall be included in the electronic file for that section"
Question: Please confirm that the sections being referred to are the main section numbers (i.e, 2.2 Executive Summary, 2.4 Past Experience), not the sub-sections (2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.3.1, etc.) level. Also, for items where there is a Government provided Appendix, can we assume that takes the place of a Word/PDF document?	Paragraph 1.13.4 has been updated to: "Within each folder the offeror may submit separate electronic files at either the Volume or Section level as identified in Table 1, and label each file according to its Volume and/or Section Title to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal."
	3	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	4	1.12.3	Requirement: "Legible tables and charts may be used. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. 11 x 17 may only be used for

large tables and charts; they shall not be used for pages of text. For tables and charts, the text shall be no less than 10 point Times New Roman Font, and margins shall be no less than ½ inch on all sides unless stated otherwise within this document"

Question: Can we assume the above requirement applies to graphics/figures as well?	Yes. Verbiage at paragraph 1.13.3 has been updated to include graphics/figures.
	4	Attachment 10 - Cross Reference Matrix	Column F, Row 5		Requirement (Column F, Row 5): "Reference: Work Sample Identifier, SOC-E Program Area, Location, Document Title, Document Datem Page, Paragraph, Table Number (if applicable), Block (if applicable)."
Question: In the Cross Reference matrix (Attachment 10, Column F) it asks for 'location'. Could the Government clarify what is meant by location within this particular reference?	Location was in reference to its location in the proposal documents. "Location" has been removed from the Cross Reference Matrix Column F, Row 5 description, as the Page, Paragraph, and Table Number satisfies this requirement.
	5	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	9	2.4.3	Requirement 2.4.3: "The Offeror shall include a work sample identifier (i.e., WS1-WS10), SOC-E program area, document title, document date, page(s), paragraph(s), table number(s) (if applicable), and block(s) (if applicable) within Column F.........Each SOC-E program area shall receive a separate reference."
Question: Please confirm that the "reference" noted in the above requirement does not apply to the Work sample itself, meaning a Work sample can be used for multiple program areas, however, the reference within the Work samples need to be different for each program area.	Correct, a single work sample can be used to meet multiple program areas. Verbiage at paragraph 2.4.7 has been updated to remove the sentence "Each SOC-E program area shall receive a separate reference" as this is already indicated within the same paragraph with this sentence: "A reference shall be provided for each SOC-E program area in order to receive a point"
	6	Attachment 10 - Cross Reference Matrix	Row 40 & 41		Item 3.2.4 Troubleshooting is listed twice on Attachment 10 Cross Reference Matrix.	The Cross Reference Matrix was updated to change the second Trouble Shooting to.2.7 Network Security.
	7	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	5	2.1	Requirement: Section L, paragraph 2.1, Table 1-Proposal Organization limits Teaming Agreements to 30 pages.
Comment & Question: This limit is insufficient to provide all required Teaming agreement documents. Will the Government please consider modifying this to "No Page Limit" to ensure that Teaming Agreements can be shown in their entirety.	The Government is not looking for the teaming agreement or Prime/Sub contract in its entirety. Verbiage at paragraph 2.4.8.1 has been updated to refer to this as a teaming agreement summary, signed by both parties, that details the responsibilities of each partner, and the percent of work/tasks to be performed by each partner.
	8	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors		2.6	Will the Government clarify, before RFP release, the contents of Volume 2 (2.3) Contract Documentation?	Verbiage at Paragraph 2.6 Contract Documentation updated to clarify the intent for this volume is for the Offeror to fill-in the SF33 Solicitation, Offer, and Award document.
	9	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	11 of 11	2.5.2.3	Requirement: Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS). The Offeror shall provide all completed CPARS reports related to the work sample. Offerors shall clearly mark each evaluation report with the associated work sample identifier (i.e. WS1-WS10).

Comment & Question: Some contracts cited for past experience and performance have periods of performance longer than 10 years. Request clarification if the Section L 2.5.2.3 requirement for "provide all completed CPARS" extends over the life of the submitted contracts CPARS, or just the Section M.7.2 "Recent" as being within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP letter.	Paragraph 2.5.5 verbiage has been updated to the following: "For each work sample, the Offeror shall provide all CPARS reports that were completed within the last five years, as of the date of this RFP."
	10	Attachment 5 - Section L Instructions to Offerors	11 of 11	2.5.5	Requirement: Additional information may be included to discuss the Offeror's efforts to resolve contract performance problems encountered on prior contracts.

Comment & Question: Some contracts cited for past experience and performance have periods of performance longer than 10 years. As with our question to clarify Section L 2.5.2.3, request clarification for Section L2.5.5 if additional information should address recent contract performance problems over the entire length of the submitted contract, or just the Section M.7.2 "Recent" as being within the last five years, as of the date of the RFP letter?

	Paragraph 2.5.8 verbiage updated to reflect "...offeror's efforts to resolve recent contract performance problems"
	11	Attachment 1 - PWS	26	5	Requirement: PWS paragraph 5.1.1 is numbered as “5.1.1 5.1 SOC-E/Helpdesk Roles and Responsibilities” with the following paragraphs Auto-numbered following 5.1.1.
Question: Will the Government please confirm that the paragraph following 5. should be 5.1 vice 5.1.1. Will the government please re-number subtask below 5. accordingly?	Corrected.
	12	Attachment 5	11	2.4.1	Due to the nature of some of the PWS requirements, some of our Work Samples will be classified. What will be the process for submitting classifed references (PWS, CLINs etc.) as our work samples?	Classified work samples up to SECRET may be accepted. Verbiage at paragraph 1.12 has been updated to instruct offerors to contact the Contracting Office for submittal instructions of classified work.
	13	Attachment 5	7	2.4.1.2	The RPA SOC PWS requirement is for a SB to have past performance, as a Prime, on 90% of the criticial tasks. However, the companies that currently do much of this work are LBs doing the work on Full and Open contracts. Would the work still qualify under Category 1 for the SB Prime even though the critical work is done by their LB subcontractors?	Removed references to Category 1 and 2, and authorized work samples performed by the Prime or its Teaming partners performing more than 25% of the tasks to be used for both Critical and Standard SOC-E Tasks.
	14	Attachment 5	7	2.4.1.2	Many of the critical tasks are currently done through LB contracts. How did the govt decide there is enough SB competition that will meet the critical task requirements laid out in the RFP (90% of critical tasks as a Prime)?	Removed references to Category 1 and 2, and authorized work samples performed by the Prime or its Teaming partners performing more than 25% of the tasks to be used for both Critical and Standard SOC-E Tasks
	15	Attachment 6	5	4.1.3	The requirement for a DCAA approved accounting system is large hurdle for both 8(A) and SBs. Not many SB or 8(A) set asides are cost reimbursement. Can the govt consider removing this and doing a pre-award audit for compliance?	The solicitiation requirement at 2.3.5 for an adequate accounting system will not be altered.
	16	General			How will SB workshare compliance be monitored since all SB prime contractors must perform 51% of the work on SB set-aside contracts?	The contractor will be responsible for adhering to 52.219-14 Deviation 2020-O0008 Limitations on Subcontracting, which states that the contractor shall comply with the limitations on subcontracting by the end of the period of performance for each order issued under the contract.
	17	Section L	4	1.12.2	"Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume." Does this apply to separate files in each volume, where each file should continue the numbering of the previous file?	No, numbering should not continue from the previous file. Paragraph 1.13.2 verbiage has been updated to reflect that each separate eleectronic file shall be numbered sequentially.
	18	Section L	4	1.12.8	Does the glossary need to cover work sample documents such as PWS/SOW files, especially where they may have their own glossaries already?	No. If a glossary already exists in the work sample, it does not need to be included in the volume glossary.
	19	Section L	6	2.2.3.1	Should these financial/resources documents be submitted combined as one file, or as separate files?	Instructions at 13.3.4 have been updated. Separate electronic files may be submitted down to the Section Title Level identified in Table 1. For financial resources, the offeror has the choice to submit a single electronic file for Volume 1 that contains all 5 Section Titles, or it may submit some or all of the Section Titles as separate files. Because Financial/Other Resources is a Section Title, all documents shall be combined as one file.
	20	Section L	7	2.4.1.2(2)	Does the reference to subsidiary or legal entity include affiliates under the same parent company where the affiliate is the Prime offeror, not the parent company?	Verbiage at paragraph 2.4.3 updated to clarify that Prime work samples may include subsidiaries or legal entities which fall under the Offeror.
	21	Section L	9	2.4.2.2	The Operations and Maintenance task area duplicates 3.2.4 Troubleshooting for both (13) and (14). Is this correct?	Paragraph 2.4.6.1 updated to change (14) to 3.2 Network Security
	22	Section L	9	2.4.2.2	Please provide the missing PWS reference for task (24) Engineering Support.	Paragraph 2.4.6.1 updated to add PWS paragraph reference 3.6 to (24) Engineering Support.
	23	Section L	10	2.5.2	Does the Government have an intended minimum number of past performances to be submitted?	Paragraph 2.5.2 has been updated to state the offeror shall submit a minimum of two and a maximum of five references.
	24	Section M	3	1.7	The 3rd paragraph of the FPR references price and lowest priced Offerors. Should this be removed considering there is no price submission for the IDIQ?	Removed all references with regard to evaluating price in paragraphs 1.9 and 1.10.1
	25	Attachment 5 - Section L	2 of 11	1.1	Is it anticipated that only the two task orders mentioned in section 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 will be designated for the partial 8(a) set-aside?	There is not an anticipated number of task orders to be designated for the partial 8(a) set-aside. Any requirements that meet the scope of work identified in paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 shall be reserved for and competed amongst 8(a) IDIQ holders.
	26	Attachment 5 - Section L	6 of 11	2.2.3.2	The government states "Offeror shall provide the latest letter or report received, and shall provide a statement that the accounting system has not changed since being reviewed". Is a version update/enhance of the same accounting system consititute of a "change"? If not, what does the governemtn constitiute as a "change"?	Version updates and enhancements of the same accounting system do not constitute a change. A change would be if the offeror's accounting practices have changed (i.e. a new accounting software system, new accounting procedures/processes, new methods of pooling costs, etc.)
	27	Attachment 5 - Section L	7 of 11	2.4.1	Section L 2.4.1 Work Samples states “The work samples shall consist of only official contract documentation which may include Performance Work Statements, Statements of Work, Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs), etc. Can the Government define etc. more specifically? For example, can program information such as presentations, minutes, drawings, etc. be provided as evidence that substantiates the work sample?	Submissions must be official contract documentation. "Etc" has been removed from paragraph 2.4.1.2. Presentations, minutes, and drawings would not be considered official contract documentation unless they are an attachment or deliverable in the contract.
	28	PWS	11, 28, and more	3.1.1, 5.1.3.2, and more	Identify a specific product in use today. Does the Government require that these exact systems be identified in work sample to substantiate the experience or will expertise with similar technologies be acceptable?	Expertise with similar technologies may be acceptable if the Government is able to determine the experience with the proposed system is similar. Offerors may use the Work Sample Cover Sheet Part III Description to provide supporting information if needed.
	29	Attachment 5 - Section L	2 of 11	1.1	Does the Government have a predefined number of awards, and if so, how many?	No. The Government intends to issue an award to all eligible and responsible offerors with a SUBSTANTIAL Performance Confidence Rating that represent the Best-Value to the Government.
	30	Attachment 5 - Section L	5 of 11	2.1	Please consider extenting the page count for section 2.4.4 - Teaming Structure from 2 pages to 5 pages.	Page Limit increased from 2 to 5 pages.
	31	Attachment 5 - Section L	5 of 11	2.1	Given the nature that Teaming Agreements can vary in page count, please consider extenting the page count for section 2.4.4 - Teaming Agreements from 30 pages to unlimited.	The Government is not looking for the teaming agreement or Prime/Sub contract in its entirety. Verbiage at paragraph 2.4.8.1 has been updated to refer to this as a teaming agreement summary, signed by both parties, that details the responsibilities of each partner, and the percent of work/tasks to be performed by each partner.
	32	Attachment 5 - Section L, and Atttachment 11	7 of 11	2.4.1.2, and 2.4.4(4)	If the prime contractor is not planning on utalizing a subcontract for a subcontractor work sample (Attachment 5 - Section L 2.4.1.2(b)) , do we need to "Provide verification of prime status for proposed team members." in Attachment 11 as required in Attachment 5 - Section L 2.4.1.2(4)?	Yes. Complete the Attachment 11 for yourself. List all work samples for which you are the Prime, if all then entering 'Prime on all submitted worksamples" in leiu of listing each contract reference is acceptable.
	33	Draft RFP Section L	9	2.4.2.2	Standard SOC-E Task Area (13) and (14) list the same PWS requirement - 3.2.4 Troubleshooting. Request the Government identify Standard SOC-E Task Area (14).	Paragraph 2.4.6.1 updated to change (14) to 3.2 Network Security
	34	Draft RFP Section L	6	2.4.1	Section 2.4.1 states "The Offeror shall submit a maximum of ten (10) work samples which demonstrate past experience in the required SOC-E program areas…" Request the Government change the maximum number of work samples allowed to 15. Discussion: the previous draft RFP allowed 15 work samples and teaming agreements and proposal strategies have been established based on the 15 work sample requirement. Reducing the number at this stage in the acquiision, disadvantages offerors who are not teamed with incumbents.	Paragraph 2.4.1 updated to allow 15 work samples.
	35	Draft RFP Section L	8	2.4.1.2	Draft RFP defines recency as "At least six months of active performance shall have been within the last five years, as of the date of this RFP." Reqeust the government change the recency period to "within the last seven years". Discussion: For several of the Task Areas, PWS requirements have not changed in the last seven years so past experience from seven years ago remains highly relevant.	Only recent past performance as defined in the solicitation will be considered.
	36	Draft RFP, Attachmnt 5, Section L	7	2.4.1	Section 2.4.1 states "A maximum of three (3) task orders issued against a single-award IDIQ can be
combined and counted as one (1) contract reference to address the criteria." Question: Can an Offeror submit more than one Work Sample for a single-award IDIQ contract if awarded multiple relevant Task Orders (four or more) under the contract?	No.

&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page &P of &N

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Aug 3, 2021.