Q A_SET_2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- INL/A GLOBAL AVIATION INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA13R0393
About this file
Q A Set 2
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 42
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
| Question | Reference | Answer | Amendment # |
| Page 140 Section M.11.B.1.a provides the evaluation criteria of “An integrated, thoughtful, and effective approach for properly managing the work to be performed under this contract to include the following sub-elements: Personnel Management, Relationships with other Organizations, Performance Management, and Cost Management.” This is not mentioned in the corresponding instructions contained in Section L. Please clarify this requirement. | Section M.11.B.1.a, pg 140 | The Section L instructions for this evaluation criteria do correspond to Section M.11.B.1 | |
| The Attachment J.1 PWS appears to have a lot of information that pertains to other related INL/A contracts. Can the government reduce the PWS to only that which is directly pertinent to the IT Services IDIQ contract or the IT Services Sample task 1, whichever it is meant to apply to? | See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 | |
| “IT/Communications Services” lines 1.A.4, 2.C.2.h, 2.C.2.i, 2.C.2.j, 2.C.3.n, 2.C.7.a, 2.C.8, and many others that could be or appear to be IT requirements are not marked for the IT Services contract in column I. Can the government please confirm the column I markings? | PWS, Column I | See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 |
| “IT/Communications Services” is not marked for 1.A.6 Enterprise Software Transition; however it seems conceivable that there will be IT requirements of the IT Services contractor during this transition to a new MIS. Please confirm that 1.A.6 will not be required on the IT Service contract. | PWS, Column I | See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 |
| “IT/Communications Services” is not marked for 2.B.2. Security Clearance Requirements, however J.11_IT_MinQualsTABLE_.xls states that at least some of the IT positions require security clearances and MRPT certification. Should this column be marked? | PWS, Column I | See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 |
| States:” The offeror shall address the following Technical Sub-Factors.” Question: The use of the term “sub-factor” here (and also in the titles for Sections L.5.1.2 and L.5.1.3) appears to be in error as this term does not appear anywhere in the descriptive RFP narratives. May we assume that the Government intends these titles to read: “The offeror shall address the following . . . Factors.”? | Section L.5.1, 1st sentence, p. 117 | See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 |
| States:” Describe your approach to support multiple, simultaneous efforts that have competing requirements for technical expertise, timelines and delivery schedules. Identify your approach to maintaining and developing technical capabilities and competencies, while providing the appropriate support throughout the duration of the contract.” Question: Can the Government please verify that these sentences which are in a subsection (“b)”) that refer to a Phase-In Plan relate to the Phase-In Plan requirement or actually should be a separate lettered subsection? | Section L.5.1.2, 1, b), 5th sentence and following, p. 118 | See amendment 002 | Amendment 002 |
| States: “9.1.” Question: As this section is in Section L overall and follows Section L.8, may we assume that this section is intended to be “L.9”? | Section 9.1, p. 133 | Correct. See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 |
| States: “Phase 1 begins with the evaluation of the proposals to determine each Offeror’s eligibility for award (see Section M.6).” Question: Can the Government please clarify if this Section reference to Eligibility for Award is actually Section M.5 in the RFP, not M.6? | Section M.4, 1., 1st sentence, p. 127 | See amendment 001 | Amendment 001 |
| How is the contractor compensated for the transition activities associated with the GFP inventory transfer from incumbent to new contractor? | Transition CLIN | TO 1 for the base year and PWS requirements are inclusive of the transition period | |
| Under C.2.9, the government is requesting activities to start at time of contract award or within x days of contract award. Is it the government’s intent to award a transition task order to address these requirements? Please clarify. | Transition activities | TO 1 for the base year and PWS requirements are inclusive of the transition period | |
| Section B.1 states that the government intends to perform work in various worldwide locations. For a small business HUBZone contractor, requirements in H.8 are too cumbersome. Recommend deletion of requirement at contract level and to be addressed, if needed, at Task Order level. | H.8 Authorization and Performance an B.1 | The requirement is firm. PWS will be central to TO 1 for the base year. | |
| Is Attachment J.1_IT_PWS the PWS that is to be used in Pricing Sample Task 1 and Table 9 in the Pricing workbook? | Yes | ||
| Will the contractor be expected to have their own facility within a certain radius of the Patrick AFB, Melbourne, or Sanford, FL area? | Your proposal should reflect your respective plans to meet requirements. | ||
| What is the proposal timeline – evaluation stages and expected award date? | Refer to FBO annoucement | ||
| States: Page limit for Volume III is specified as “7 pages.” Question: As the Consent Letters (Attachment J.19) and the Client Authorization Letters (Attachment J.20) are required to be included with the past performance references, can the Government please clarify the Offeror is required to provide one of these two letters each per subcontractor or whether it is to provide one of these two letters each per past performance reference? | Section L.3.1, Table L.3.1, p. 114 | Refer to revised table L.3.1 in amendment 001 | |
| States: “Include a discussion on price reductions in the event of less than acceptable performance. Provide examples to illustrate your reply.” Question: Noting that the J.2._Awd_Term_Plan document clearly shows a method of tracking incentive/disincentives tied to the successful performance of the QASP and other monitoring methods through a point system, can the Government please clarity whether it expects proposed price reductions in the QASP in the event of less than acceptable performance or a proposed numerical rating system that ties to scoring of performance areas as outlined in Attachment J.2? | Section L.5.1.2, d), p. 118 | Agreed. See amendment 002 | Amendment 002 |
| States: “Key Personnel/Staffing Plan.” Question: There does not appear to be a requirement for a “staffing plan” in the traditional sense in this RFP, meaning a proposed labor content mix by Labor Category proposed hour allocation against SOW or PWS tasks/requirements. Can the Government please clarify whether such a staffing plan is required, such as for the Sample Task Order (i.e., Task Order 1) in the proposal submission? | Section L.5.1.3, p. 119 | Comply with instructions in section L for technical submission. The traditional staffing plan to which you refer is covered in L.7 instructions for Volume IV. | |
| States: The overall scope of work and detailed descriptions provided are not consistent with the scope of work and associated descriptions in Section C, Statement of Work in the RFP. Question: Can the Government please clarify how the Offeror is to address these inconsistencies and in some cases conflicts in preparing its response in Volume II and in its treatment of the Sample Task Order PWS in its Staffing Plan and pricing? | J.1, PWS | Section 1 of the PWS provides for general program background and mission information. Section 2 covers contract requirements. Read 1.A.1 of the PWS. | |
| There is no place to indicate Prime or Subcontractor Name for individual rates. Will the Government amend this document? | L.7 | No. The contractor shall supplement their price proposal with a table that lists the rate category description and prime, or subcontractor name. | |
| This item asks for details of estimated travel costs and that offerors should provide a fee percentage and dollar amount. Are burdens/fees permitted on Travel and ODCs? | L.7.2 | Yes. Travel and ODC are subject to burdens and fees consistent with your company's DCAA approved rate structure. | |
| Item d below indicates that offerors are to indicate if the entry is an SCA labor category or not. In B.13.a on page 23 it indicates that SCA is not applicable. Please clarify? | L.7.2.d, B.13.a | B.13 will be amended as follows.“a) The OCONUS portions of this contract are not subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965, as amended (41 U.S.C 351, et seq.), because the principal purpose of the contract is not to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees.” | Amendment 002 |
| For pricing purposes, could the Government please specify which requirements are FFP and those that are CPFF? | J.15 | All rates are fixed for the labor category and year indicated. | |
| Page 123 Section L.7.2 Price Proposal Instructions provide instructions on completing the pricing attachment for the IDIQ and Sample TO; however, there is no mention of overseas DoS allowances for each of the respective locations. How does the government want interested vendors to represent DoS allowances to the government in their spreadsheet or does the government intend to allow payment of allowances as ODC? | Section L.7.2, pg 123 | Offeror proposals shall be documented, and annotated, to indicate where and how overseas allowances are included in their proposals. The Government anticipates that overseas allowances shall be invoiced on separate line items, similar to ODCs. | |
| Page 131 Section L.7.2.62 of the solicitation requires offerors to detail total dollars estimated to be subcontracted to each proposed subcontractor and total dollars estimated to be performed by the offeror. Is this based on the sample task order? As this is an IDIQ contract, it is impossible to estimate the dollar value without information on the current state operations we will be supporting on contract award. | Section L.7.2.62, pg 131 | Yes this is based upon the sample task order. Offeror's proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in Section M. Price evaluation, and comparative analysis, will be the sum of tabs #6 and #9. | |
| Is the government putting any Not To Exceed (NTE) amount for estimated ceiling indirect cost & estimated fee for travel? | In attachment J.5 – Pricing Tables, sub-sheet 6-IDIQ Prices | No. There are no limits to estimates fees on travel. | |
| For Amendments, will the SF 30s be submitted in Volume VI, Section A behind SF 33? If so, please consider revising page limitation. | L.3.1 | Yes, no page count limitations | |
| The RFP states, “2. the vetting procedures described in Section L.3.9.10.3 (if applicable).” There is not a section L.3.9.10.3 provided in the RFP. Please clarify. | M.5 para 2 | The RFP will be amended to remove references to L.3.9.10.3 | Amendment 002 |
| In section B.13 Selected Cost / Price Related Laws states that this contract is not subject to the Service Contract act, but B.14 Advanced Understanding states 52.222-43 Price Adjustment applies. If SCA does not apply per Section B.13, please clarify the applicability of 52.222-43? | Service Contract Act | B.13 will be amended as follows.“a) The OCONUS portions of this contract are not subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965, as amended (41 U.S.C 351, et seq.), because the principal purpose of the contract is not to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees.” | Amendment 002 |
| Does the government expect offerors to populate Table 9 with the anticipated difference in staffing between the LOE specified in Table 6 and the Sample Task? Please clarify the difference between the two tables? | Pricing Table 9 (Sample Task) | Tab 6 is generating a value of the offerors fixed labor rates against the provided FTE numbers. It is not an estimate of FTE required to perform Task Order 1. Tab 9 will represent the offeror's approach and pricing to perform Task Order 1. | |
| The government references Section L.3.9.10.3 (vetting procedures) - could the Government remove this reference? | Eligibility for Award (M.5) | The RFP will be amended to remove references to L.3.9.10.3 | Amendment 002 |
| In order to facilitate a fair evaluation, will the government consider adopting/including a CLIN for the anticipated Transition Period? adopt Transition CLIN in pricing template and PWS/WBS | PWS, Pricing | Phase-in is part of the initial period of performance. | |
| It appears that the number of positions per year seem to be fixed for all years. Can offerors adjust the model to show different levels of position for each year? | Attch J.5 Pricing Tables IT ; Tab 6 IDIQ Pricing | No, Tab 6 is generating a value of the offerors fixed labor rates against the provided FTE numbers. It is not an estimate of FTE required to perform Task Order 1. Tab 9 will represent the offeror's approach and pricing to perform Task Order 1. | |
| RFP indicates that the detail pricing tables are to be in a separate folder from Pricing Tables 1-10. Is the Offeror allowed to link from Detail excel table to the file contain pricing tables 1-10? | L.7.1(1) | Yes. Provided that the elements of the base table are fully populated. No attempt by the Government will be made to cross check or verify linked table information. | |
| RFP indicates a phase-in period however Period of Performance (PoP) does not indicate a breakout of Phase-in. Please confirm Phase-in duration and identify if Phase-in is part of the 12-month base period? | L.7.2(6) | Phase-in is part of the initial period of performance. | |
| Pricing templates do not accommodate a breakout for Phase-in cost, where should the offeror proposed phases-in costs? | Attch J.5 Pricing Tables IT | Phase-in is part of the initial period of performance. | |
| RFP states: Offerors shall not include DBA Insurance costs in their contract proposals. Offerors FPRA ,FPRP or Provisional Billing rates may includes DBA as part of the indirect rates application. Is it the Governments intent to have Offerors not proposed in accordance with their disclosed practices? | L.7.1(9) | Regarding insurance, G&A and Overhead are allowable contract costs. Fee is not. L.7.1.9 is amended via amendment 002 | Amendment 002 |
| RFP section L.7.1(9) states: Offerors shall not include DBA Insurance costs in their contract proposals. However Section G.6(10) states: In the price section, for DBA Insurance costs under any arrangement, the contractor shall submit a breakdown of the proposed/estimated costs. This seems to be conflicting guidance. Could the Government clarify DBA pricing guidance? | L.7.1(9) & G.6(10) | Regarding insurance, G&A and Overhead are allowable contract costs. Fee is not. L.7.1.9 is amended via amendment 002 | Amendment 002 |
| TO 1 Prices requires us to create prices for Services and Supplies for each PWS Line Item #. RFP section H.6 states that necessary on-site supplies will be government furnished.” What supplies are you expecting us to price here? | The Attachment J.5 Pricing Table, tab 9 | Any supplies, services, licensing, etc. the offeror proposes as part of their technical approach to perform Task Order 1. | |
| IDIQ Pricing on the Pricing Tables shows “Positions Per Year,” however this seems to be inconsistent with the stated support required at multiple locations. As one example, the position of Site Lead shows as only 0.5 FTE per Year. The table at RFP paragraph H.17.a) shows that a Country Site IT Site Lead is required in Afghanistan, Colombia and Iraq. That would seem to indicate that three (3) Site Lead FTEs are required. Are the Positions Per Year only for evaluation purposes or do they accurately reflect the number of FTEs the government expects to need? | Tab 6 IDIQ Pricing | Tab 6 is generating a value of the offerors fixed labor rates against the provided FTE numbers. It is not an estimate of FTE required to perform Task Order 1. Tab 9 will represent the offeror's approach and pricing to perform Task Order 1. | |
| States: “The maximum for the contract’s period of performance, including any extension(s), shall be any quantity or combination of supplies and services not exceeding $80,000,000 (inclusive of all direct costs, indirect costs, and profit/fee).” Question: Can the Government please clarify that this ceiling amount does not include other direct costs such as travel costs, costs associated with obtaining access to designated foreign countries, living expenses while on travel (e.g., per diem), equipment purchases, and software purchases, etc? In addition, given the substantial magnitude and complexity of the equipment inventory described in Attachment J.1, IT PWS, valued at more than $600 million, the direct cost associated with maintaining, inventorying, and refreshing this inventory, implies that the $80,000,000 ceiling for the specified 10.5 year period of performance for this IDIQ contract is insufficient to assure full compliance and execution by the new IT contractor. | Section B.3, b), p. 8 | The $80,000,000 is inclusive of all costs. | |
| States: “In either case, such copy shall show that sufficient DBA Insurance coverage has been obtained for the entire period of performance for the task order.” Question: In order to ensure that “sufficient insurance coverage” can be negotiated and secured by the ITS Contractor, can the Government please provide a historical summary of injuries, sicknesses, accidents, incidents, etc. for contractor personnel CONUS and OCONUS support this effort for the past three years? | Section G.9.2, 8), 2nd sentence, p. 46 | No. Contractors are free to do their own market research, and document assumptions in their pricing proposals. | |
| States: “The contractor shall (1) establish a training plan to ensure personnel understand and avoid the execution of IGF and (2) ensure that its employees under this contract do not perform inherently governmental functions as described in FAR 2.101 and 7.503. [and j)]The Contractor shall establish and maintain an Inherently Governmental Training Program and shall ensure that all of its employees working on this contract are informed of the substance of this clause.” Question: Can the Government please confirm that the cost for the creation, presentation and facilitation of the required IGF training program is a reimbursable cost to the contractor? Will the personnel time allocated to creating, delivering and receiving the training be considered allowable under the contract? | Section H.23, i) and j), p. 60 | No. The amount of time and effort to communicate the essence of Inherently Governmental Functions is nominal compared to the overall scope of this effort. Not separately billable, and should be considered along the same lines of EEO training, Drug Free Workplace, and Timesheet compliance. A general cost of doing work for the Government. | |
| Must an Offeror have an approved forward pricing rate agreement and have been audited by DCAA to be considered for an award under this solicitation? Would a letter of compliance from a DCAA inspection be sufficient? | Overall | The solicitation does not require, as a condition of contract award, that proposed indirect cost rates be audited by DCAA or another entity. However, RFP Section L.7.1(1) states in part, “Offerors which fail to submit a compliant price proposal may be excluded from contract award consideration. A compliant price proposal satisfies all instructions in Section L.7.2 (Price Proposal Instructions) and Task Order 1 Price Proposal Instructions.” Unless your organization’s established cost accounting practice is to allocate all of its costs directly, it is required to comply with, among other instructions, the instructions in Sections L.7.2(8) through (14), and (65). | |
| States: This reference is to the spreadsheet formulas in the IDIQ Prices worksheet. Question: Note that the references in the Tab 6 cells to corresponding cells in the Tab 5, Fixed Labor Rates cells do not match up Labor Category to Labor Category. For example the reference for CLIN X009, IT Site Lead in Cell J18 of Tab 6 references cell H15 in Tab 5 which is for CLIN X007, Senior Data Base Engineer. Can the Government please update the Pricing Table file at J.5 that has correct cross-references throughout? | J.5, Pricing Tables (IT) 3-6-14, Tab 6 | Amendment 002 will provide a corrected J.5 Pricing Model. | Amendment 002 |
SAQMMA13R0393 Q&A SET # 2
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .