Questions and Answers 25 Sep 2020.pdf

25 Sep 2020 Questions and Answers

1. Questions: On page 3 of the draft RFP, Part I Section B states: “The single proposal shall differentiate between the Groups so that the proposal includes a Section A for Group A, Section B for Group B, and Section C for Group C. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror.” Our assumption is that relevant past performance would be the same for all three Groups and offerors are simply identifying the Group(s) they want to be considered for award in Volume I of proposal.

Please Clarify:

a. Question: How should an offeror differentiate between Sections/Group?

Answer: The offeror will differentiate by identifying the Groups which are separated by CLINs. The Preamble of the RFP indicates the specific CLINs for each group. There is also a preamble for each separate group. The offeror’s proposal will identify (in the cover letter) which Group [Group A (CLINs X001-X131), or Group B (CLINs X132- X385), or Group C (CLINs X386-X437)] or any combination of each Group by identifying the group and CLINs.

b. Question: What is the submission requirement for each Section/Group?

Answer: The submission requirement is to identify the group or groups the offeror is proposing. The quantities and prices are to be determined at order level so the only requirement is to identify the group. The proposal requirements are detailed in Section L and the RFP’s Preamble. Identify the Group [Group A (CLINs X001-X131), or Group B (CLINs X132-X385), or Group C (CLINs X386-X437)] or any combination of each Group by identifying the group name and CLINs. The Government will clarify this submission requirement in the RFP Preamble.

2. Question: RFP Attachment 1, L-900, Section C - Volume 2, Para 2 – Past Performance states “Commercial contracts will not be considered as a part of this evaluation”. However, in RFP Attachment 4 Instructions for PPI, Page 17 paragraph 15 states “For commercial contracts provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles, if available.”

Answer: The reference to the commercial customers via PPI is incorrect and will be removed.

3. Question: Are you able to share if the posting on the 18th confirms the due date response? We are seeking to provide a response and it’s unclear if the due date is 9-11 or a later date? Are we late to this?

Answer: The response date will be updated and reflected in the PreSolicitation notice on beta.SAM.gov. The response date will be 30 days after the release of the formal RFP. Currently the potential release of the solicitation is anticipated to be in mid-October 2020.

4. Question: Throughout the RFP the term Joint Venture/Teaming Contractor used. Is the government viewing these terms interchangeable, even though they technically have different contractual structures and responsibilities, etc. and in some cases require SBA approval?

Answer:

FAR 2.101 and FAR 9.601 give definitions of contractor team arrangements. The Joint venture/Teaming agreements referenced in the solicitation are partnerships between two or more companies to act as a potential prime contractor or where a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more companies to have them act as a subcontractor.

5. Question: If a Joint Venture/Teaming Agreement is established, who approves these agreements?

Answer: The Joint venture/teaming agreements referenced in the instant solicitation are not being submitted to the Government for approval. The Government is requesting the contractor submit copies of the agreements between the parties (companies) to disclose the partnership to the Government as part of the proposal. The SBA does not approve Joint Venture Agreements (“JVA”) created pursuant to an approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement (whether approved through the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (ASBMPP) or the 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program) unless the Joint Venture is pursuing an 8(a) contract.

6. Questions:

a. Question: If a Joint Venture/Teaming Agreement is established, does the partner need to complete the Past Performance Information (PPI) as identified in RFP Attachment 4?

Answer: Section L.II.C.1. states “the offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, in accordance with the format contained in the PPI Tool and the Past Performance Relevancy Table.” The offeror/joint venture member submitting the proposal will populate the PPI tool IAW RFP Attachment 4. RFP Attachment 1 - Section L.II.C.2 states “the offeror/joint venture member shall be the party to submit all performance information in the PPI Tool.” RFP Attachment 4 includes directions on populating the Business Relationship portion to identify roles in the proposed acquisition for Joint ventures/teaming arrangements. RFP Attachment 4 includes directions for populating the Program Details Tab in the PPI Tool which allows offeror to identify if Prime, subcontractor or joint venture.

b. Question: How will this input be evaluated (jointly with the Prime Contractor or under their own merits)?

Answer: The input will be evaluated IAW RFP Attachment 2 – Section M.II.C.1.

Volume II, Past Performance Factor which states “the past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s and joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule.” Section M.II.C.1 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings states “as a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.” Each effort will be evaluated on its own for recency, relevancy and quality.

7. Question: Our Past Performance citations cover all the requirements under the RFP. To accomplish the contractual requirements of our past performance, we may have utilized subcontractors vs. creating Joint Venture/Teaming Contractors to complete the associated tasks. Do we have to establish a Joint Venture/Teaming Agreement to be considered compliant with this proposal if the various Task Order actual requirements aren’t fully established and/or identified yet?

Answer: The Proposal Requirement is not to establish a Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement and should not be construed as requiring a teaming arrangement. Section L- II.B.1 states “Volume I, Completed RFP/Technical Proposal shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating……Teaming arrangement information including the roles of team members, dates of agreement, and a copy of the signed joint venture agreement (if applicable).”

The past performance submissions are at the offeror’s discretion; however, the relevancy definitions should be taken into account when deciding which efforts to submit for evaluation. If an offeror has an effort that could demonstrate relevancy, but they performed as part of a teaming arrangement/joint venture, that effort can be submitted, with a detailed explanation as to the specific work the offeror’s company performed as a part of the teaming arrangement/joint venture in that effort

8. Question: How does the Past Performance of potential Joint Venture/Teaming Contractors play into the final determination of award?

Answer: The Past Performance will be evaluated IAW RFP Attachment 2 – Section M. Section M.II.C.5 states: “in order to be eligible for an acceptable rating, the offeror’s past performance record in total shall demonstrate performance in all three areas (i.e., sourcing activities, inspection and acceptance, and shipments) within the relevancy definition.”

IAW attachment 2 - Section M.II.C.1the Past Performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The approaches used to assess past performance are in detailed in Section M.II.2. As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. A qualifying offeror is one that is deemed to be responsible, technically acceptable and whose past performance is rated acceptable.

9. Question: Under Volume 1, Complete RFP/Technical Proposal, please describe what kind of information is needed for Technical Proposal.

Answer: Section L.II.A provides Proposal Volume Requirements IAW Section L.II. Paragraph B the following documents makes up Volume I: Completed RFP/Technical Proposal, Cover Letter, and RFP Attachment 3 - Volume I Oral Presentation for Discussions Slide Deck.

Section L.II.B.1 - 1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP/Technical Proposal shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating the following:

Any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale.

Any assumptions the offeror’s proposal is submitted with Small Business status/categories Company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company CAGE Code, DUNS number Teaming arrangement information including the roles of team members, dates of agreement, and a copy of the signed joint venture agreement (if applicable).

All “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required Identification of group or group(s) (A, B, or C or any combination of) offeror is proposing to

10. Question: Is Attachment 2 missing or overlooked?

Answer: No. RFP Attachment 2 - Section M has been uploaded as an attachment to beta.sam.gov.