Amendment_3_Clarification_to_questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Strategic Partners Acquisition Readiness Contract (SPARC) IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- RFP-CMS-2016-SPARC
About this file
Clarifications to Questions and Answers Submitted
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| questions |
| Amendment #2 – Government States “Past Performance- To clarify conflicting answers in excel rows 426 and 286, only subcontractor past performance questionnaires may be submitted directly to sparc@cms.hhs.gov. All other subcontractor past performance information must be included in the proposal. “ |
Would the government please clarify that ‘subcontractor’ as referenced above is in fact ‘significant subcontractor’ as stated in the instructions and evaluation sections of the RFP on pages 97, 98, and 109?
| Yes, significant subcontrator(s) for past performance | |
| The offeror shall refer to the Action Plan Reappraisal (APR) capability announced by the CMMI Institute to address this requirement. In addition, the offeror shall include any and all process improvements that support its capabilities to perform under this contract vehicle. |
Question: CVP’s understanding is that an Action Plan Reappraisal is applicable to vendors who must address certain weaknesses before they can be granted their CMMI rating and is not applicable to vendors who have successfully obtained their rating. Please confirm that if a vendor holds a current CMMI appraisal rating and was not subject to an Action Plan Reappraisal, that no action plan needs to be submitted with the proposal.
| confirmed | ||
| Items 1-3 are not consistent with the Technical Proposal Instructions in Section L.14. Will the Government revise Section L.12.a to provide consistency? | amended in the RFP | |
| Items 1-8 are not consistent with the Business Proposal Instructions in Section L.15. Will the Government revise Section L.12.b to provide consistency? | amended in the current RFP | |
| The answers to two questions (line 442 and 446) appear to give conflicting answers regarding the format for providing required reports, plans, and agreements. Some of the documents required for inclusion in the proposal currently exist in pdf format (e.g., company financial reports, CMMI Final Reports). The first answer (line 442) allows offerors to submit attachment in pdf format. The second answer (line 446) states that attachments should be included in the technical or business proposal. To embed these documents in Microsoft Word documents will greatly increase the file size. Will the Government permit offereors to submit four files - Volume I (Word), Volume I Attachments (pdf), Volume II (Word), Volume II Attachments (pdf)? | CMS has amended the RFP to remove the need for an editable format proposals. Proposals and supporting documents maybe be in editable format, PDF or a mix of document types. | |
| In Amendment 1, two questions (lines 248 and 537) asked about an Executive Summary. In answer to the first question, the Government indicated that a 3-page Executive Summary could be included and that it was not included in the 30-page limit. The answer to the second question indicated that an Executive Summary could be included at the beginning of the technical proposal and that it would be included in the 30-page limit. Which answer is correct? | Executive summary is included in the page count. Executive summary is not a manadatory part of the proposal. | |
| Amendment 1 replaced the previous content of this section with a detailed discussion of Contractor Teaming Agreements. Are offerors no longer required to "furnish information identifying subcontractors and teaming arrangements" if no Contractor Teaming Agreement is proposed? | significant subcontrator(s) need to be identified for the past performance criteria | |
| An answer to a question (line 130) indicated that "‘Unit’ testing should be removed from testing services. Unit testing should always be a part of Development testing." This change was not made to Section J.1.5. Will the Government modify Section J.1.5 to remove the references to "unit testing"? | amended in the current SOW | |
| In Excel Row #459, the government states that, "CMS will provide additional information in section J to provide more details" regarding CMS' Technical Reference Architecture. A review of the amended J-1, however, does not appear to include this information. Would the government please clarify where any additional TRA information is located as part of the amended RFP attachments, or release the TRA information directly to Offerors? | Upon further review, The Technical Reference Architecture documents are sensitive in nature and will not be released for this IDIQ RFP. | |
| Answers provided in Excel rows #377 and #384 appear to contradict each other regarding the provision of budgeted out-year indirect cost rates. #377 appears to require the information for 10 years, and #384 appears to require it for the first five years only. Would the government please provide clarification? | Please limit the budgeted out years to 5 years | |
| The answer provided in Excel row #463 suggests that - for the Corporate Experience section of the proposal - CMS is NOT asking for ALL prime contracts for an Offeror for the last 3 years, but representative contracts to demonstrate relevant experience, and that such a list of contracts IS subject to the limitation of 30 pages. Would CMS confirm -- is this correct? | Yes this is correct. Not all prime contracts but representative contracts. corporate experience is limited to 30 pages. | |
| Given answers released on 8/27, we conclude that a copy of an Offeror's current SAM information may be included in the Business Volume of the proposal as a substitute for information requested in the amended RFP, Section K (to include specific sections K.1 and K.5). Is this correct? | Sam will not be a substitute for K1 and K5 but I could see it as a supporting document if you wish | |
| In the answers to questions released with Amendment 1, the following information was provided: · Row 350 - Question: “Will the government please provide the SF-33?” Answer: “SF-33 has been removed from the RFP” The Government’s answer states that the SF-33 has been removed from the RFP, however Section L.12.b.1. still requires the SF-33 to be included in the Business Proposal. Will the Government please amend the solicitation to remove the SF-33 requirement? | amended in the current RFP | |
| In the answers to questions released with Amendment 1, the following information was provided: · Row 83 – Question: “Can the goals and the $’s be represented in a table format for base and option years instead of the format currently in the attachment a. Total estimated dollar value of ALL planned subcontracting, i.e., with ALL types of concerns under this contract is _____ ____ (Base Period - if options apply). FY ___1st Option FY ___2nd Option FY ___3rd Option FY ___4th Option $ _____________ $ _____________ $ _____________ $” Answer: “Please use the form provided and do not alter it.” · Row 185 – Question: “CMS has provided Offerors with a sample “Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan” as Attachment J-3. Please confirm that an Offeror may utilize its own subcontracting plan template so long as that Offeror provides at least same amount of information outlined in CMS’s sample plan.” Answer: “CMS requests that you submit your plan using the provided sample.” · Row 545 – Question: “The solicitation calls for the small business subcontracting plan to be in the J3 format, however the Attachment states that the format is merely a guide and not meant to replace our corporate template. Can we use our own template?” Answer: “Yes, but all information requested in the J.3 format should be included.” The Government answers seem to conflict. Are offerors permitted to utilize their own company format as long as all information requested in the Attachment J.3 format is included? | Please fill out J-3 attachment without any edits to the form. |
The solicitation requires two distinctly separate Small Business (SB) plans: (1) Small Business Participation Plan (2) Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan An SB Participation Plan is not the same as a SB Subcontracting Plan. SB Participation is a percentage measure using total contract value as the baseline. SB Subcontracting is a percentage measure using total subcontracted dollars as the baseline. (a.) The solicitation instructions contained within section L.14.4., Small Business Participation, instruct offerors to “prepare and submit a proposed small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan, as prescribed in FAR 52.219-9 and outlined in Attachment J-3, Subcontracting Plan Format.” These instructions do not pertain to a SB Participation Plan and instead to a SB Subcontracting Plan. Will the Government please revise the SB Participation Plan requirement to remove any instructions related to the small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan, hereafter referenced as “SB Subcontracting Plan”? i. Will the Government clarify if there are any Small Business Participation Plan goals, to be identified as distinctly separate from the SB Subcontracting Plan goals? ii. Will the Government please clarify how the SB Participation Plan will be evaluated? CMS has not requested a small business participation plan. The criteria is called small business participation which requires filling out a small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .