Q A_Set__7.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA13R0044
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 | |
| 1 | RFP states: The Government will conduct its evaluation using the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: |
1. Consistent Applications of Defined Processes
2. Teambuilding, Integration, and Coordination with Associate Contractors and USG
3. Project Monitoring and Reporting
4. Safety
5. Organizational Plan
6. Past Performance
7. Price.
Please confirm the order of importance listed above is correct. Where will the Total Compensation Plan fit within this list of order of importance? Offeror requests an explanation of where Factor 5, Organizational Plan, is listed due to the importance that is stated in Section H, Section L and Section C (Goal 1 of Human Capital).
Yes the order of importance listed above is correct.
The Total Compensatin Plan will be evaluated as part of Factor 5. Sub-Factor B.
| 2 | Regarding the Facility Secret Clearance. This is a matter of responsibility, which is under the purview of the Small Business Administration. Unless access to classified information is required prior to award, the Department of State has no precedent for requiring a small business to possess a Facility Secret Clearance at the time of proposal submission. This requirement appears to seek only to unfairly restrict competition. Would the government please consult with the small business competition advocate and consider amending this requirement to consider an interim clearance,, companies who have already initiated the clearance process and anticipate to have had it issued prior to time of award, and/or include team members who possess the proper clearances currently? | Upon review we concur that the facility clearance is required at contract performance and not as a condition of proposal submission. Offerors will comply with instructions in the RFP, attachment 3, DD-254, block #13 which reads in part," shall possess SECRET personnel security clearances issued by Defense Security Services (DSS) prior to contract performance." |
| 3 | SAQMMA13R0044_Amendment_001_Final-_3DEC13 and Attachment J-5. In the Key Personnel Chart, a Subject Matter/ Industry Specialist is listed as the Labor Category for the Program Safety Officer PWS Position Title; however, the labor categories listed in Attachment J-5 has a SME II and a Safety Project Manager but no Subject Matter/Industry Specialist. Did the Government intend to identify one of the two aforementioned labor categories as the Labor Category for the Program Safety Officer PWS Position Title, or is Subject Matter/Industry Specialist an additional labor category that needs to be added to the Attachment J-5? | We see the Safety Manager as the higher level planner and administrator of the program-wide SMS, and the Safety Specialist as the down-range lead who implements the SMS afield. |
Similarity in qualifications is due to our base line minimums. Offeror can propose exceeding requirements or additional labor category if it supports your approach.
| 4 | PWS_RFP_PSO_3_Dec_13 & Q&A_Set_2 . The Questions relative to PWS paragraph 1.A.8 was cited in row 30 of the Q&A Set 2 document posted on FBO on Dec 12/18/13. The Government’s answer provides USG billeting; however, it does not address the follow-up questions concerning if a non-USG contractor will be providing such facilities, or if it’s the responsibility of the PSO Contractor to obtain billeting for its employees. Furthermore, the answer does not respond to the question as to whether there will be a CLIN assigned to billeting and other base support costs should billeting not be provided by the Government. | Billeting is USG provided as stated in the reference (Billeting in Iraq and Afghanistan as cited. USG (NAS) provides billeting at FOLs Quetta in Pakistan, Pulcapa, Peru, and spray bases in Colombia). However, in all cases where not provided it is an allowable cost IAW the contract as LQA. CLIN structure will be IAW instructions at RFP. |
| 5 | PWS 6.A |
Discussion: The PWS indicates that the MOB for Peru is Pucallpa. Question 1: Are the USG provided accommodations at Pucallpa and other FOLs suitable for permanent assignment of personnel. Question 2: How many accommodations/billeting units will be provided at the MOB (Pulcalpa) for PSO personnel.
| On base lodging at FOL Pucallpa is USG provided and mandated for security reasons. Not suitable for year-round assignment. Propose the personnel count to support your approach. | ||
| 6 | PWS 4, 6, 7. Question 1: Based on the answer to question 27 in Q&A 2, does the USG provide lodging and meals for PSO personnel in Quetta at contractor or government expense, i.e, does the contractor reimburse the government for those services provided by the NAS? Are any other services provided such as DPO access, Resuscitative Care, Local Access Badge, etc., in locations other than Iraq and Afghanistan? Question 2: Are billeting spaces limited to a specific number for the PSO contractor at FOL/MOB sites? | On base lodging at FOL Quetta is USG provided. No reimbursement to USG. Meals not provided. FOL has clinic and ER available, with evac to level II care in Islamabad if needed. NAS will support mail service of INL/A contractors. Propose the personnel count to support your approach. |
| 7 | H-035 D |
Discussion: In Iraq and Afghanistan both DOS and DOD provide a list of provided services that PSO personnel will utilize at the MOB and FOL/FOB sites, however they vary by agency. Question: Which agency, DOD or DOS, is currently providing services at the specific locations specified in the PWS, e.g., is DOD providing services at Erbil or DOS? Please provide a location list that specifies what agency is providing the service at each FOB and MOB location.
| Iraq services provided through DOS. Afghanistan services provided through DOD. No distictions between FOL and MOB in the country regarding services. | ||
| 8 | Will the government allow the IMS summary and/or sample to be submitted as an attachment/appendix to the volume, and not include it in the page count? | IMS summary should be in C.1, which is not subject to page count. |
| 9 | PWS 3.C.2.b. Initial setup will include all other supporting Contracts under DOS Air Wing Aviation Program (~40 contracts, 200 Task Orders). After setup, anticipate 12 new and 12 closed items per year. (Refer to CFSP and Other Tab within this workbook) (Refer to CFSP and Other Tab within this workbook) is not located in the work book, is this a referrenc to attachment, J-8 CFSP and Other Contracts, or is there another document? | The referenced tab was removed. The singular reference is Attachment J-8. |
| 10 | Ref RFQ paragraph 8.1 Oral Technical Proposal Presentation. |
Given that the government has yet to establish that orals will be required by all, and the production of a 90 minute presentation is a large undertaking that will be difficult to meet given the current timeline overlapping the proposal production process, we would ask for the following consideration.
Could the government require the submission of the slides for the oral presentation once it is determined that oral presentations will be required or upon the establishment of a competitive range. Another alternative could be to require submission of the slides for the oral presentation 3 weeks (or alternative time period) after the submission of the formal proposal documents.
| Agreed. See Amendment #2 at FBO. | ||
| 11 | What are the licensing arrangements associated with the line items on the Authorized Software List (e.g. Enterprise License, Limited use License, # of Client Access Licenses (CALs) where appropriate) ? | INL/A has a microsoft BPA with DOS. Any special software must go through our IT CCB process. |
| 12 | Will the PSO winner be able to leverage any of the existing licenses in performance of this effort? | DOS will leverage existing licenses on behalf of contractors. |
| 13 | Which position are required to be on site at Patrick Air Force Base? | If PWS and AQL requires, the Contractor should be available to meet with INL/A within one hour of being notified. |
| 14 | The question was asked if the government would consider raising the page count from 7 to 20, the government responded with a Yes. Does the government intend to release a MOD to change this requirement, as well as the other answers the government answered in Q&A number 2? | See Amendment #2 at FBO. |
| 15 | Does Bogota, Colombia MOB have existing data servers and data communications networks, including connections with CONUS at PAFB and FOLs, that will be available to PSO (or other INL/A designated contractor) to implement Program Mgmt., SMS, QASP, Collaboration/Teambuilding and Dashboard software solutions (servers and clients; hardware and software)? |
Does Pucallpa, Peru MOB have existing….
Does Islamabad, Pakistan MOB have existing Does Kabul, Afghanistan MOB (Camp Alvarado) have existing Does Baghdad, Iraq MOB (BDSC) have existing
| Does CONUS at PAFB or Miramar have existing.... | Yes | ||
| 16 | When will the new Program Mgmt., SMS, QASP, Collaboration/Teambuilding, and Dashboard software solutions (servers and clients) need to import, transform, reformat, etc. data transferred from any legacy systems, databases, files, etc. (before, during, or after transition)? | Each according to their respective requirements in the PWS and the offerors' approach. | |
| 17 | In reference to the "AWIS Network High Level2B.pdf", will Program Mgmt., SMS, QASP, Collaboration/Teambuilding, and Dashboard software solutions (servers and clients) implemented by the PSO under this contract have access to the networks identified in the diagram? | Yes | |
| 18 | Program Mgmt., SMS, QASP, Collaboration/Teambuilding and Dashboard software solutions (servers and clients) will be needed to meet the requirements of the PSO goals and mission. |
Question: Is the PSO required to install and support (O&M) the server and client hardware and software at each site required for these software solutions to operate?
| No. Approved software would reside on existing USG network and hardware. | |
| 19 | Program Mgmt., SMS, QASP, Collaboration/Teambuilding and Dashboard software solutions (servers and clients) will be needed to meet the requirements of the PSO goals and mission. |
Questions:
a. Will any hardware or software specified (or provided) by the PSO be required to be certified and accredited (C&A) by INL/A or other INL/A-designated DOS department prior to, during, or after implementation?
b. Will the software and hardware be required to undergo an Authority to Operate process prior to implementation and operation?
Hardware or software specified (or provided) by the PSO must be certified and accredited (C&A) by INL/A prior to introduction on USG network. If Authority to Operate is required you will navigate the process with DOS IT oversight.
| 20 | Does INL or INL/A have any Enterprise Architecture standards, requirements or restrictions that affect the selection of the Program Mgmt., SMS, QASP, Collaboration/Teambuilding and Dashboard software solutions (servers and clients) that will be needed to meet the requirements of the PSO goals and mission? | Hardware or software specified (or provided) by the PSO must be certified and accredited (C&A) by INL/A prior to introduction on USG network. |
| 21 | Referenced section 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, the answer provided in Q & A Set 2 indicates that there is no Exhibit B. |
Question: We assume the Sample Task Order and associated cost tables 8 and 9 are not to be priced. Is this assumption correct?
| No your assumption is not correct. Please see Amendment 002 which direct the contractor to price Section J, Attachment 1 | |
| 22 | Referenced section states: "Each Offeror may be required to make an oral technical proposal presentation and participate in clarifications led by the Contracting Officer and participated in by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Members and other representatives of the Government. The oral technical proposal presentation and clarifications, if any, will be held at the unclassified level. The oral technical proposal presentation will be used to assess the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the requirements set forth in the RFP." |
Questions:
a. Will orals be required?
b. How will orals be evaluated?
c. What is the relative weighting of the orals sections?
d. How long will the TEP caucus?
e. Will the TEP deliver all clarification questions at the same time, or after each response?
f. How long will the Offeror be allowed to caucus?
g. Can unused oral presentation time be reapplied to either the contractor's Q & A session or caucus time?
h. How will the Government ensure clarifications do not invoke discussions?
i. Will all offerors be given the same questions?
| See Amendment #2 at FBO. The Government reserves the right to hold oral presentations after the establishment of the competitive range. We will address these questions, when and if the government determines that oral presentations would benefit the government. | |
| 23 | Presentation media are limited to computer-based graphics or normal viewgraph slides. Q & A set 1, question 5 indicates that a video can be used. |
Question: We presume this to be a contractor-developed video of products it uses, rather than a vendor marketing video. Is this assumption correct?
| Yes, that is a correct assumption, contractor-develeped video of products it uses rather than a vendor marketing video may be used. | |
| 24 | Amendment 001, pg. 139 of 155, para. L.8.1.2 Oral Technical Proposal Presentation Media |
Discussion: Referenced paragraph indicates transition effects may not be used.
Question: Can slide builds be used to show sequences, as long as each build is provided in the slide deck?
| Yes, slide builds can be used to show sequences. | |
| 25 | Amendment 001, pg. 139 of 155, para. L.8.1.2 Oral Technical Proposal Presentation Media and Amendment 001, pg. 110 of 155, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization |
Discussion: Amendment 001, pg. 139 of 155, para. 8.1.2 Oral Technical Proposal Presentation Media states: “Oral technical proposal presentation slides shall be submitted…with the written proposal submission.” however, pg. 110 of 155, Table 2.2 Proposal Organization does not designate a volume or section of the proposal in which to place the slides.
Questions: In which volume and section of the proposal submission should offerors place their oral presentation slides?
| Amendment 002 deleted the requirement to submit Oral presentation slides with the written proposal submission. | ||
| 26 | Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit A #5 and #7 – the Pricing Instructions for the Sample Task Order reference Pricing Table 9 and the columns titled “PWS Line Item #” and “PWS Title” but there is no Sample Task Order PWS. Please supply this information. | The Sample Task Order is Section J, Attachment 1. |
| 27 | For the purposes of the task order, please clarify the government’s intent for the contractor to cost all CLINS defined in PWS_RFP_PSO_3_DEC_13.xlsx. | Yes, the contractor is to provide costs for all executing the work as described in Section J, Attachment 1. |
| 28 | We have not found instructions regarding the PWS paragraph level (i.e. - 2.C.2) that we should summarize on Worksheet 9. Request that USG specify the PWS level required? | Provide a total price of services and supplies for each major geographical area (CONUS, Iraq, Colombia, etc.). |
| 29 | RFP B.10 and B.11. Our assumption is that Profit is a term applicable to Fixed Price line items and Fee is a term applicable to Cost-type line items? Is our assumption correct? | Yes your assumption is correct, Profit for FFP and Fee for Cost Plus Fixed Fee. |
| 30 | RFP Section L 8.1.2. Section L Table 2.2. Oral technical proposal presentation preparation slides shall be submitted in advance with the written proposal submission. Request that Section L Table 2.2 recognize Orals as Proposal submission deliverables with the number of original and copies and media required for delivery. | Amendment 002 deleted the requirement to submit Oral presentation slides with the written proposal submission. |
| 31 | Section L Table 2.2 and Section L para.3.3. Row 3 of Table 2.2 requires a TOC for Vol II. Section L para's 3.1 and 3.3 of Vol I Ex Summary requires a master TOC covering sections II through V.Request USG clarify the number and locations of TOC's in Section L, Table 2.2 and supporting text. Are Sections II through V now retitled Sections A-E2? | Provide the TOC as stated in Section L para.3.3. The TOC in third line of the table is that. |
| 32 | In comparing Table 2.2 to paragraph 4.3.1 Proposal Preparation Instruction (PPI) 4 is not included as Section A.2 in Table 2.2. Recommend USG include a reference to PPI 4 as Section A.1 Program Management Methods Examples of Table 2.2. Following this recommendation current Section A.2 in Table 2.2 would be renumbered as Section A.3. | Please include in Section A.1 |
| 33 | In comparing Table 2.2 to paragraph 4.3.1 PPI 4 is not included as Section B.2 in Table 2.2. Recommend USG include a reference to PPI 4 as Section B.2 Teambuilding Examples in Table 2.2. | Please include in Section B.1 |
| 34 | In comparing Table 2.2 to paragraph 4.3.1 for Factor 2, PPI 1 for Risk Mitigation is not included in Table 2.2. Recommend USG include a reference to paragraph 4.3.1 Section B, Factor 2: Risk Mitigation as Section B.3 Risk Mitigation in Table 2.2. | Please include in Section B.1 |
| 35 | In comparing Table 2.2 to paragraph 4.3.1 for Factor 3, PPI 4 Examples for Project Monitoring and Reporting is not included in Table 2.2 as Section C.2. Recommend USG include a reference to paragraph 4.3.1, Section C: Factor 3: Monitoring and Reporting as Section C.2 Relevent Experience Examples in Table 2.2. Further recommend USG renumber current Xection C.2 and C.3 as C.3 and C.4 respectively. | Please include in Section C.1 |
| 36 | In comparing Table 2.2 to paragraph 4.3.1 for Factor 4, PPI 5 Examples of Recent and Relevent Experience is not included in Table 2.2 as Section D.2. Recommend USG include a reference to paragraph 4.3.1 Section D, Factor 4: Safety as Section D.2 Examples of Recent and Relevent Experience in Table 2.2. | Please include in Section D.1 |
| 37 | In comparing Table 2.2 to paragraph 4.3.1 for Factor 4, B. Sub-Factor PPI 1 Probability/Consequence Matrix is not included in Table 2.2 as Section D.3. Recommend USG include a reference to Factor 4, B. Sub-Factor PPI 1 as Section D.3 Probability/Consequence Matrix in Table 2.2. | Please include in Section D.1 |
| 38 | Is the current Factor 5. B. Sub-Factor: Organizational Approach missing from Table 2.2 as updated by Amendment 1.Recommend USG include Organizational Approach (and PPIs 1-5) as Section E.3 in Table 2.2. | Please include in Section E |
| 39 | Moderate Risk Public Trust package submissions instructions are contained in Section J Exhibit E. Request USG provide this missing Exhibit. | The reference in H-038, DEPARTMENT ACCESS FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS, should read Section J, Attachment 3, DD 254. |
SAQMMA13R0044 Q AND A SET #7
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .