Q A_SET_2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA13R0044
About this file
Question and Answer Set 2.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 72 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Answer |
| We are attempting to cross reference PWS requirements to positions for resumes and pricing. This task would be much easier and more accurate using the excel format instead of the Word PWS. |
Question: Is it possible to get the “Section J-1, PSO RFP PWS 3 Dec 2013” in the excel format? This would be much appreciated.
| Yes. Excel version of PWS dated 3 December is posted at flydos.us. | |
| Task Order_1_Solicitation.11-25-2013.docx under Anticipated Task Order Period of Performance requires the offerors to price a Base Year, and 2 Option years through 2017. However Attachment_5.Pricing_Tables_3DEC13, Tab 9 requires Base Year Pricing and 9 Option years. Can the government please clarify the anticipated period of performance for the Sample Task Order? ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT A |
Paragraph 2 states:
The anticipated Task Order period of performance, which shall be used for pricing purposes, is:
Base Year: April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 Option Year 1: April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 Option Year 2: April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 However, the pricing spreadsheet, Attachment 5- pricing tables, Tab 9 provides a pricing table which includes 10 years. Please confirm that the period of performance for pricing purposes is:
Base Year: April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 Option Year 1: April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 Option Year 2: April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 The sample task order is for the base year, plus two option years as indicated in J, attachment 1, exhibit A.
Base Year: April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 Option Year 1: April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 Option Year 2: April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017
Beyond that are seven award terms of a year each, all totalling 10 years. That is why you see the pricing table showing 10 years total.
The NAICS Code and small business size standard do not appear to be referenced in the solicitation. Shall we assume that the applicable NAICS Code is 541330, Engineering Services, with a small business size standard of $35.5 million?
During the Industry day held on January 9, 2013, Mr. Jesse Lowman indicated that the NAICs code would be 541330 Exception No 1 with a size standard of 35.5 million. Please clarify in writing that this is the correct NAICs code for this procurement. To answer both questions, below are the seven procurements and the respective NAICS codes. The 541330 code for the PSO, Maintenance, and Logistics reads as follows:
(1) Program Management: NAICS Code 541330 Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business.
(2) Flight Services: NAICS Code 541330; full and open competition.
(3) Maintenance Services: NAICS Code 541330; full and open competition.
(4) Logistics Services: NAICS Code 541330; full and open competition.
(5) IT/ Communications Services: NAICS Code 517909; HUBZone.
(6) Training: NAICS Code 61152; total small business set-aside.
(7) Safety Compliance: NAICS Code 541990; total small business set-aside.
Notes regarding NAICS code 541330;
we believe the 541330 NAICS code best fits the above Department of State aviation procurements for many reasons. For the PSO, using the special $35.5M size standard for Engineering Services - Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons as it is the most well aligned NAICS code for the broad range of aviation tasks needed within the SOR. By using this NAICS size standard, DOS AW further reduces risk by allowing for larger small business to participate, particularly those supporting other DOD aviation commands.
| If the bidding entity is a JV, and one but not both members of the JV has an active facility clearance, will this status meet the FCL requirement and eligibility for contract award? | ||
| Discussion: To be considered for award of this contract, interested Prime Offerors must possess, at the time of proposal submission, a Defense Security Service (DSS) Secret facility clearance (FCL), issued in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), DOD 5220.22-M. Section M-005 Eligibility For Award | Joint Ventures (JV) must possess a FCL at the time of proposal submission. |
| Do all OCONUS personnel work 48 hours per week or is that a position by | |||
| position decision made by the contractor in their proposal? | J-5, Tab 5., Prices, indicates 2,256 annual work hours for those positions we require on extended work weeks. Beyond that minimum you should propose as necessary to support your proposal. | ||
| PWS 3.C.6.a. Discussion: this references the current SMS, and says to “study the current SOP.” Question - Is this a reference to the collection of posted Safety Directives, or is there another SMS document that has not been posted? | The former; this refers to the posted Safety Directives. | ||
| Discussion: The solicitation uses the acronym DOSAW and INL/A almost interchangeably throughout the document. Question - Which acronym does the USG prefer we use when referring to the DOS Air Wing or INL/A? Is their a difference we should be aware of and use one or the other in certain situations? | These are interchangeable and we have no preference. In formal communications with elements outside of the INL Office of Aviation (aka DOS Air Wing or DOSAW) we use INL/A. | ||
| Discussion: The PWS released yesterday is dated Dec 3. The PWS released in table format on Dec 5 is also dated Dec 3. Question - is there any difference in content of the two PWS documents except type of document, i.e., Excel spreadsheet versus MS Word? If there are changes, can you provide a Track Changes document so we can identify all the changes? | No difference. The correct version will have 3 December date in the file name, whether excel or word format. | ||
| To expand the potential recruiting pool to take advantage of airline and military personnel that have a wide range of quality experience to offer the program, will INL consider adding equivalent experience to the minimum education requirements in J-11? While a Bachelor’s Degree in Quality Management, Quality Assurance or related field” is specified but would be limited and costly to employ, would adding “a minimum of at least 8 years military and/or commercial aviation quality control or quality assurance experience in lieu of a degree” be acceptable for a QA specialist/auditor on this program? | INL/A will consider variations of the education, training, and experience levels, as noted in line #49 of J-011; **Disclaimer - INL/A will consider trade-off between minimum education and minimum experience, on a case by case basis if proposed** |
| Discussion: Both Peru and Pakistan maps indicate multiple locations. Question - What are the FOL performance requirements and standards for Peru and Paksitan? PWS 6. and 7. | In both, the PWS specifies no FOL requirements for PSO. The maps indicate locations where operations may take place. | ||
| Will Wounded Warrior job candidates be allowed certain physical handicap | |||
| exemptions from the restictions listed under H-018? H-023 | No. However, we see H-18 as medically restrictive only in |
limited cases. In many cases persons with physical handicap may perform on contract while complying with H-018.
Discussion: Personnel requiring clearances will require some period of processing to move their current clearance to offereror. Question - Will DOS allow 60 days to move clearances from current employer to offereor?
H-031 INL/A cannot waiver any provisions of Attachment J-003, DD 254. However, it does provide for some flexibility. See block #13 for detail.
A. Revised Attachment J-5, dated 12/03/2013, cites a lower number of OCONUS personnel, specifically, Country Site Managers (5), FOL Site Managers (4), and Safety Specialists (5). These new quantities are neither reflected within the revised PWS, dated 12/3/2013; nor are these quantities specified elsewhere. Could you please specify the OCONUS locations where these requirements are posted?
B. Within the revised Performance Work Statement (PWS), dated 12/03/2013, the PWS cites revised performance requirements, or labor categories specific to each OCONUS location. This differs from those labor categories listed in the SOR. For example, per the PWS dated 12/03/2013:
a. A Safety Specialist is no longer listed in Colombia
b. An FOL Site Manager and Safety Specialist is no longer listed in Peru;
c. An FOL Site Manager and Safety Specialist is no longer listed in Pakistan; etc.
| Could you please advise which list is applicable for OCONUS personnel requirements. | The revised J-5 in amendment 1 post should be used for pricing proposal. Your technical proposal will specify labor types and personnel number which support your approach. PWS will not cite personnel numbers, rather PWS addresses reqwuirements by location. | ||
| Will INL/A waive the FCL requirement for submission to the proposal? | INL/A has no waiver authority regarding the FCL. | ||
| PWS Para 2.A.2.2. What is meant by the bulleted term “common plan”? | Disregard “common plan” in PWS 2.A.2. I will not amend the 3 Dec PWS unless a more cardinal change is required. Thank you. | ||
| PWS Para 1.A.7. What data and in what quantity is only available in hard copy? | That table of contents is at FlyDOS web site, attachment 8.4. | ||
| Paragraph L.7.3.34 States “In Pricing Table 7, offerors shall propose one fixed fully-loaded hourly labor rate per applicable labor category per year, regardless of which entity (offeror, subcontractor offeror, or other) is anticipated to perform the labor category.” | |||
| Once labor categories have been identified to be performed by our subcontractors and we require/request the subcontractor’s detail pricing data for inclusion in the Detail Pricing Table, can the subcontractor’s send the detail pricing data, which they consider proprietary, directly to the government in a sealed envelope and the Detailed Pricing Table indicate the data was sent directly to the government. Under separate cover? | Please see Paragraph L.7.3.65. | ||
| PWS Para 1.A.7. What data is classified and at what level? Are there any requirements for cross-domain data access, e.g., data classified as secret being accessed from a top secret environment? | Nothing will exceed your facility clearance level (secret). No cross-domain requirements. | ||
| What US Embassy services (e.g., DPO, PX/Commissary privledges, etc.) will |
be available to PSO personnel in countries other than Afghanistan and Iraq? H-035 See H-035, USE OF THE SYNCHRONIZED PRE-DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONAL TRACKER (SPOT). These are the only pre-determined services.
Discussion: The PWS states the following: ...The program or application to carry the data will be proposed by the Maintenance contractor, as they will input and maintain the preponderance of data, and the accuracy of their data is so critical to safety. Question - Is the Maintenenace prime contractor expected to provide the MIS project management upon award and transition of the Maintenance pillar contract? PWS 1.A.6 As stated in step #3 in reference, PSO will continue to lead the IPT as project manager until project is complete. The IPT will provide guidance to the MIS Project Manager including decisions and directions as the MIS system goes through the typical project life-cycle phases to include: planning, development, implementation, monitoring & controlling, and project close-out (or transition to O&M).
PSO will manage the project, working with the IPT until the system is steady-state.
Discussion: The PWS states the following: …The mid- and high-level requirements for the MIS will be collected in advance and included in the Maintenance Services RFP. Question - Is the intent of DOSAW to have the Maintenance Serices contractor propose, and execute the MIS for the entire DOSAW? If so is it the intent that the MIS have a primary focus of maintenance and a secondary information sharing ability across the other disciplines of Program Support Operations, Flight Operation, Logisitics, etc? PWS 1.A.6 The Maintenance contractor will select and provide the system to eventually replace AWIS. It will carry the MX data as well as the other data sets you named. All data sets are equally critical in order to arrive at a joint information environment. However, the data central to proper maintenence, and logistics support for same are most sensitive in terms of flight safety.
| Discussion: The PWS states the following:..PSO version 3 will include those results as well. Question - Please clarify what is meant by PSO Version 3? PWS 1.A.6 | Disregard , "Version 2 of the pillar contracts will include the results of this analysis. PSO version 3 will include those results as well." I will not amend the 3 Dec PWS unless a more cardinal change is required. Thank you. |
| A. Discussion:...Step #2 of the project will commence with the arrival of the PSO infrastructure architect, who will serve as the initial program manager until the Maintenance and IT partners arrive. Question - When will the PSO Insfrastructure Architect turn over the MIS Program Manager duties and to which contractor, Mainteance or IT? PWS 1.A.6 |
B. Discussion: The PWS states the following:...Once the Maintenance contract is awarded, and the MIS application is known, the PSO PM will continue to push ahead with that information. Question - Please clarify who is in charge of the MIS development at this point, the PSO, or the Mainenance contactor who is now the prime for the MIS according to 1.A.6?
C. Discussion: The PWS states the following: ...Step #3 begins with the arrival of the partner contractors. All will be represented in the IPT for this MIS project. Maintenance will become the subject matter expert for the software it proposed. IT and other arriving associate contractors will join the IPT as integral integral partners. PSO will continue to lead the IPT as project manager until project is complete. Question 1 - what defines project completion? Question 2 - Is the PSO leading the IPT only or also acting as the MIS Program Manager as well? Question 3 - If the Maintenance contractor is proposing the MIS system and in charge of its implementation as part of their contract, shouldn't they be the MIS Program Manager?
| D. Discusssion: The PWS states the following:...In essence, the Maintenance Services contract awardee will be required to provide the “how to” of the MIS Project solutions and the IPT will help monitor and control the work via readiness reviews and control gates. This statement indicates the Maintenace contractor will be in charge or should be in charge of the project and the IPT will monitor and control and will not be in charge of the development or implementation. Question - When does the PSO turnover responsiblities for MIS design, development and implenatation of the Maintenance contactor? | The PSO Insfrastructure Architect will retain control of, and responsibility for the MIS project, working with the IPT, until it becomes steady- state and AWIS is retired. At that time the MIS will become responsibility of IT, still working with the IPT. Of course the arriving MX and IT contractors will be key and influential members of the IPT, but the PSO will manage the project until steady-state is attained. | ||
| Discussion: The PWS states the following:..PSO version 3 will include those results as well. Question - Please clarify what is meant by PSO Version 3? PWS 1.A.6 | Disregard any reference to "PSO version 3". It referred to a subsequent draft, now supplanted by the 3 December PWS. I will not amend the 3 Dec PWS unless a more cardinal change is required. Thank you. | ||
| Within the revised Performance Work Statement (PWS), dated 12/03/2013, Honduras is no longer listed as a performance location site. The Statement of Requirements (SOR), however, has not been revised, and Honduras remains a performance location within the SOR. Could you please clarify if the Offeror is to propose ceiling rates for Honduras. | You should propose based on the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3 December, at FBO, amendment #1 posted on December 5th. Previous dated are obsolete drafts. No proposal is required for Honduras. | ||
| What is the role of the IT contractor upon award? PWS 1.A.6 | Nothing to add. | ||
| PWS Para 1.A.8. For locations other than Iraq and Afghanistan, does the USG provide billeting facilities at other OCONUS locations? Attachment 7 in FlyDoS.com does mention billeting provided in Peru at forward operating locations and Pakistan but not Colombia or Peru main base, is this correct? If not USG, who is contracted to provide those facilities, or is that the responsibility of awarded PSO contractor?a. If responsibility of the contractor, what CLIN is assigned to billeting and other base support costs? | Billeting in Iraq and Afghanistan as cited. USG (NAS) provides billeting at FOLs Quetta in Pakistan, Pulcapa, Peru, and spray bases in Colombia. | ||
| A. Discussion: A number of required plans are identified that are the responsibility of the PSO. Question - Is the Transition Plan the only plan required with the PSO proposal submission? PWS 3.C.3 |
| B. Discussion: The deliverable requested is “1 x integrated MIS database”, but the task describes developing an architecture. Question - Should the deliverable be an “integrated to-be architecture” instead which meets the performance standards? If not, will the government revise the task to ensure enough scope to develop and deliver a system design? PWS 3.C.3.b | Please follow the proposal preparation instructions in section L, and cover the specific elements discussed in the evaluation criteria, at section M. | ||
| Discussion: The task describes that the PSO Contractor shall “Define the system, technical, and application architectures, and in some instances the business systems/process architecture for major areas of development”, which we assume refers to the to-be environment. Depending on the detail required, this can range from the work of one architect, to an architect with a team of several analysts to define requirements, model data and information flows, and consider technical alternatives. Question - Can the Government either clarify the workload required (FTE’s), or more completely define the level of detail expected and alternatives to be considered to allow offeror’s to right size our bids? PWS 3.C.3.b | No, not at this time. Having provided (1) the background study information of existing system (AWIS), and (2) a description of what we seek, (3) a quantity and (4) an acceptable quality level (AQL), USG is interested in seeing your approach to providing the service. | ||
| Discussion: The task requires a Master Test Plan as a deliverable, but the task says only that the Contractor shall “oversee the creation of the Master Test Plan”. Given the integrated nature of the proposed solution, we anticipate an IPT with participants from several DOSAW functions and other contractors will provide the specific inputs to the Master Test Plan. Question - Can we therefore assume that the PSO architect is only required to facilitate and oversee a process to create the master test plan to meet the performance standards, vs. the responsibility to create the test plan itself? PWS 3.C.3.c | The PSO architect will oversee the IPT process to create the master test plan to meet the performance standards of PSO led projects, such as the MIS system and other PSO projects and tasks. |
In most cases the associate contractor is responsible for their respective projects, to include test plans. Their the PSO will participate as an IPT member and facilitate the process to create the master test plan to meet the performance standards of the project plan.
Discussion: The PWS states under Performance Standard - 1. Implement live version for steady-state, program wide use NLT first day of contract year 1.
2. Complete testing, certification, data migration, data back-ups and training of associate contractors to correspond with fielding.
3. 100% functionality required at start of year 1 contract. Question - If the Mainteance Contractor is proposing and implementing the MIS as part of their contract why is the PSO conttractor responsible for 100% functionality at the start of year 1? The PSO is neither proposing the MIS system nor has control of the development effort. Question 2 - The PSO is leading the IPT, but the Maintenance Contractor appears to have responsiblity for the implementation of the MIS, is that correct? PWS 3.C.3.d Since the PSO is first to arrive, INL/A will contract with the PSO to bring the expertise and carry the responsibility to lead and enact this critical element of the program-wide application.
Incoming MX and IT associates will be contracted to join the IPT promptly, with their respective expertise and responsibilities towards the effort.
| PWS para 1.A.2.e, Rules of Engagement/Command Authority: Reference paragraph states, “Within that security arrangement the contractor is required to execute an internal force protection program not unlike the required, integral safety program.” Without security details for each operating location, it is difficult to propose to the expected level of effort. Please clarify the specific PSO requirement to execute security requirement by location, specifically OCONUS other than Iraq and Afghanistan. | Unless otherwise specified, the extent of contractor responsibility towards "security" at any given site includes following the rules, policies, and procedures. Think of routine, non-invasive matters such as internal communication and emergency action plans (EAP). |
| PWS Para 1.A.6. How will the handoff process describe in step 3 be defined? | The successful PSO offeror will plan and lead the process. |
| PWS Para 1.A.6. When will the results of the assessment be available to bidders? Will it include a complete list of the data elements that are addressed by this procurement? | It is posted as attachment J-10 in solicitation and posted at www.flydos.us. Description: Attachment J-10, Current Enterprise Management Information Systems |
| PWS Para 1.A.6. Provided that all required data elements are included, can the data dictionary vary from what currently exists to be able to modernize data handling? | It can and will vary, based on the differing approach of each offeror. |
| PWS Para1.A.6. Are any technologies, e.g., cloud, Oracle, etc. either favored or discouraged? | None are favored or discouraged. |
| Section 1.A.6 of the PWS states “Once the implementation of the MIS Project is finalized and the existing AWIS application and hardware is decommissioned, the O&M services will transition to the vendor supporting the IT Services organization.” However there is no mention of the enterprise architecture activities, e.g., governance, EA revisions, change control, etc. Will the PSO continue these activities for the duration of the PSO contract? | No. At the point where MIS becomes steady-state, the IT contractor will take lead. PSO, MX, and others on the IPT will continue as critical members throughout life of contract. |
| PWS Para 3.B.7. Are there specific enterprise architecture tools currently in use or planned for use? | No. |
| PWS Section 3.C.3.a.9. Change control has a distinct meaning and well developed processes in the IT realm. As described in this section, change control is applied broadly and IT is only a small component of the CCB coverage. Section 3.C.3.a.9 supports this as it describes CCBs covering fleet configuration, aircraft database, flight support equipment, MIS systems, IT hardware and software. Does the DoS require a single CCB functionality that applies across the range of areas mentioned above, or can CCB functionality be separated so that it can be tailored to the unique requirements of each area? | DoS requires a CCB standard operation procedure (SOP) which can apply across the range of functional areas, which can allow for CCB functionality separation if needed, to be tailored to the unique requirements of each area. |
| PWS Para 3.C.3.b. Establishing IT governance and the enterprise architecture maintenance and revision processes are missing from the list of required tasks. Do these items already exist or will these items be a responsibility of the enterprise architect? |
a. Additionally, this section states that the PSO “Architects solutions across multiple hardware/software computing environments and system components.” This is typically done by system providers. Please clarify how you envision this working when the PSO defines the requirements and then separate contracts are issued to build and deploy the system; won’t these other contractors want to architect their own solutions? How will the PSO know how the IT and Maintenance contractors typically design their systems?
If that is required, you should include that as part of your proposed solution.
a. PSO and all associate contractors under DOSAW will operate inside of GINL and DOS-SBU systems.
PWS Para 3.C3.c. This section states that SQA will “Utilize organizationally established architecture tools, repositories, and repository management processes to capture, publish, and maintain architecture artifacts.” What are these tools and processes?
a. Also, this section states “Examine the functionality, purpose, and integration of existing and planned MIS software applications, program-wide, to determine and document the business, data, application and technology principles for the planned applications that will meet INL/A and DoS Enterprise Architecture goals.” How does this differ from the assessment that is currently in progress?
The successful offeror will define the tools and processes in their proposal.
a. The difference being para 3.C.3.c. is work the PSO will undertake on arrival, while the SERDI study was undertaken by a 3rd party to provide you a snap shot in time to assist you in planning and estimating.
| PWS Para 4.F and subparagraphs. Much of the records, reports and deliverable requirements are applicable to the operations, logistics and maintenance associate contractors. It is not clear what records, reports and deliverables are specific to the PSO. Request USG clarify the specific PSO requirement. | All reporting is pertinent to PSO due to the work requirements of the PSO, at various levels, specified throughout paragraph C of the PWS. |
| PWS para 1.A.2.f. (Fig 4) How many government personnel perform PSO duties who are not assigned to the Contracts Division? | No response. |
| Will INL/A sponsor for an interim FCL so we meet the bid requirement? | At this time INL/A does not intend to sponsor. |
| In Section H-031 there is NOT a requirement for a secure facility clearance for the Prime or anywhere in the SOR. |
In the Evaluation Section, M-005 states that the Prime must have a secure facility at time of submission.
Also, in the SOR and the Q&A it states that the Prime may use government office space and if this occurs and all review of secure documents are conducted at the government facility, then why does the Prime need a secure facility clearance?
If a Prime has several subs with a secure facility, will this count for the Evaluation requirement?
| If the Prime has a lease for office space in Melbourne with a secure facility already approved for one of its subs, will this count for the Evaluation requirement? | Offeror(s) must meet the clearance requirements as cited in Attachment J-003, DD 254, of the RFP. | ||
| Dyncorp is the current incumbent. Would the government provide information on Dyncorp’s current subcontractors? | No. | ||
| What is the historical level of effort on the program support element of the incumbent contract? In particular, the current/historical level of effort (LOE) by labor category per current operating site. | No response. | ||
| PWS Para 1.A.3.e. This section requires compliance with various standards; however, some such as FISMA have various levels of compliance while others such as FIPS have many sections. For any of the listed standards that have more than a single level of compliance (e.g., FISMA), or multiple sections (e.g., FIPS, NIST), what level is required by INL/A? | Remember that section #1 of the PWS is general and high-level in nature, to give the PSO a wider view of the overall program and where the various elements intersect. In this context the final sentence, " Comply with FISMA, FIPS, NIST, and applicable sections of FAM/FAH." is not germane to PSO. Focus on the PSO specific requirements in sections 2-10 of PWS. | ||
| PWS Para 3.C.2.a. As written, this paragraph describes a process where the enterprise architect will analyze the proposed systems, rather than the more typical sequence where the enterprise architect provides the standards and framework to determine system specifications that proposals are then written to. One possible rationale for the sequence described is that the enterprise architecture already exists. Will the enterprise architect be creating new enterprise architecture or validating existing enterprise architecture? | This task requires you to work within the existing enterprise architecture to make new MIS work within that framework. | ||
| PWS Para 3.C.2.b. There is a requirement that 100% of historical data will be migrated. Is data migration/conversion the responsibility of the PSO? What is the form (e.g., hardcopy, tape, on-line, etc.), format (PDF, CSV, etc.) and quantity of this data? | It is a PSO responsibility where (1) PSO is the MIS project leader, and (2) where the data migration supports the new MIS project plan. I cannot speak to the quantity beyond the PWS and reference attachments already provided. The format is electronic, within existing MIS (AWIS). | ||
| In the RFP section 2.2 the Government has not identified where they would like the required Orals Presentation to be located, (e.g. as an appendix to the Technical Volume)? | If the Government decides to conduct Oral Presentations, offerors will be notified of the location. | ||
| The SF33 has not been updated, and the CLINs for Honduras is still listed. Is the Offeror to propose pricing for Honduras, or will there be an revised SF33 prior to the submission date of 01/08/2014? | Please see SF 30 for Amendment 001. Honduras is not part of Attachment 1 - Task Order 1, "Program Office Support Performance Work Statement" | ||
| PWS 3.C.3.a. The Government has requested that the Contract Program Management Plan (CPMP) be developed, completed and approved by INL/A and ready to issue by November 1, 2014. In addition, the PSO Contractor will be expected to issue and brief the CPMP to associate contractors at the start of the transition period. Given these expected deadlines, what is the expected commencement (i.e., kick-off meeting) and duration of the transition period for all associated contractors? | November 1, 2014 - expected transition NTE 6 months. | ||
| A. In the government’s latest Amendment 001, document Task_Order_1_solicitation.11-25-2013 is included as a Sample Task order. “The Department of State requests you submit a cost/price proposal in response to the Performance Work Statement provided in Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit B.” We are unable to locate this Exhibit B being referenced. Please clarify. |
B. Per the newly released Attachment 1, Exhibit A it states under the Reference on page 1 that an Attachment 1, Exhibit B is to be used for pricing of Task Order 2013-001. Will you release Exhibit B today? Is Exhibit B a different PWS than Task Order 1 PWS?
C. Reference Amendment One, Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit A. Reference states: “The Department of State requests you submit a cost/price proposal in response to the Performance Work Statement provided in Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit B.” Exhibit B was not included in Amendment One. Where is Exhibit B located?
D. In Reference to Attachment 1, Exhibit A, entitled Sample Task Order Request for Proposal, included with Amendment 0001, the first paragraph states “The Department of State requests you submit a cost/price proposal in response to the Performance Work Statement provided in Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit B.” However, we were unable to locate Exhibit B anywhere in the documents that have been released. Additionally, in Section J – List of Attachments, on page 88 of the solicitation, there is no exhibit B listed in the table of attachments. We did notice that on the FlyDOS web site, under attachment 1 there are three documents currently available. Please provide Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit B.
The only document we have that resembles a Task Order is the complete PWS. Is it your intent that offerors submit a cost/price proposal for the curtailed period of performance in Attachment 1, Exhibit A as well as a cost/price proposal for the full period of performance spelled out in the RFP and that both cost/price proposals be based on the complete PWS?
| Attachment 1 - Task Order 1, "Program Office Support Performance Work Statement" is to be used as the sample task order. There is no Attachment 1, Exhibit B. | |||
| Is it the government's intention to not include Volume VI in this master Table of Contents?"Include a master table of contents covering sections II through V."Section L-001.3.3 | No, Volume VI should be included in the table of contents. | ||
| Is the Table of Contents requested at Section L-001.3.3 (part of the Executive Summary requirements), included as part of the 10 page limit? | |||
| Executive Summary requirements, Section L-001.3.3 | No | ||
| Given the status of this procurement as an SDVOSB set-aside and the requirement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.5, which prohibits any condition or action that has the effect of unnecessarily restricting the acquisition of commercial items or competition in the contract actions of the agency, would the government consider amending the requirements for the sample task order, which as currently written favor incumbent contractors, present potentially undue risk for a contractor who does not have access to historical data such as the incumbent as the sample task order may become a task order under the contract and appears to be written to encompass the scope of work required under this effort, and unnecessarily limit the pool of contractors who could realistically bid on this effort? | There is no incumbent contractor providing these services. | ||
| Past Performance Volume III as described in Section 5.1 requires the offeror to submit a minimum of three past performance references for both the prime and any proposed subcontractors. Given these requirements and the likelihood that most small businesses will have multiple partners to successfully perform the full scope of tasks requested under this procurement, would the government please consider increasing the page count from 7 pages to 20 pages to better allow for an accurate and complete past performance risk assessment. | Yes. | ||
| For the sample task order response, please clarify whether the government intends for the contractor to price the base year and two options as indicated in SECTION J-1A, SAMPLE TASK ORDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL or the base year and nine options, as illustrated in the pricing template on tab 9. | Fixed labor rate, indirect rates, fee, profit will be priced for 10 years. Pricing of the Sample Task Order will be for a base year, and two priced options. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .