Q A_Set__3.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- INL/A GLOBAL AVIATION INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA13R0393
About this file
Q A Set 3
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
As of Aug 4, 2014
| Question/Clarification Requested | INL/A Answer/Clarification | |
| 1 | The Government has dropped the requirement for a Total Compensation Plan from the Instructions to Offerors. However, FAR 52.222-46 is STILL referenced (p. 81) which necessitates by Offerors the inclusion of such a plan, with salaries, fringe benefit amounts, etc. and all offerors must apply the FAR since it has higher priority than the Instructions to Offerors (even if the Government doesn't include specific directions on where to include this plan). Therefore, we suggest the Government select one of the following alternatives: |
a) Either delete the FAR 52.222-46 reference entirely from p. 81, allowing offerors to not be required to produce a Total Compensation Plan; or
| b) Instruct offerors to include the Total Compensation Plan in Volume V or in the "Supporting Information" section of Volume IV (as for example, the uncompensated overtime plan is currently). | FAR 52.222-46 will be deleted in Amendment 003. | |
| 2 | In answer to the question “Page 139 Section M.11.A.1.a provides the evaluation criteria of “the offerors understanding of the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement.” Page 117 Section L.5.1 requests information related to offers ability in “maintaining responsibility for providing the IT services described in the Statement of Requirements, address steady state (IT) operations, break fix, and mission critical upgrades.” Please clarify the Government’s intent. Should offerors provide a response to the entire IT Services PWS or specifically for their approach for IT Services steady state (IT) operations, break fix, and mission critical upgrades?” (Reference: Section M.11.A.1.a, pg 139), the Government states: “Our intent is to evaluate the three areas you select as critical, against the stated criteria.” |
This did not clear up the serious ambiguity concerning Section M.11.A.1.a, pg 130. In particular, it is not clear if when the Government says “three (3) areas”, if it means 3 of the 3 types of support in the set “steady state (IT) operations, break fix, and mission critical upgrades” or 3 of the 8 (or more) services in the set “Cross Functional, Data Center, Data Network, Voice Network, End User, Service Desk, Applications and IT Property Management.” For instance, would an offeror be responsive if it chose as most critical 3 of the 8 (or more) services, say: “Cross Functional”, “Data Center”, “Data Network”, and then for each of these three selected services, discuss every one of the types of support: “steady state (IT) operations”, “break fix”, “mission critical upgrades”?
For example:
I. Most Critical Three Areas:
A. Cross Functional
1. Addressing steady state (IT) operations ...
2. Addressing break fix ...
3. Addressing mission critical upgrades ...
B. Data Center
1. Addressing steady state (IT) operations ...
2. Addressing break fix ...
| We reviewed the referenced instruction and see no need for amendment. The information requested is, specifically for their approach for IT Services steady state (IT) operations, break fix, and mission critical upgrades. Your example would be an acceptable format. | ||
| 3 | In answers to vendor questions, for the vendor question: "Please confirm that the following items are excluded from the page count: • Cover Page/Title Page • Table of Contents [in each volume] • Table of Figures/Exhibits [in each volume] • Master Table of Contents [in Executive Summary] • Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms [in each volume] • Cross-reference matrix (if provided) • Resumes • Letters of Commitment • Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Examples/Samples • Total Compensation Plan (included with Volume II)" (Reference: Section L.3.2, Page Limitations), the Government answers “All pages will be included in the page count and page limits increased. Refer to revised Table L.3.1 per Amendment 001.” However, in the Amended RFP on page 115 of the RFP it still states: “Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.” Please clarify this ambiguity. Are all pages included in the page count, or are all pages, excluding the glossary, included in the page count? | The latter is correct. All pages are included in the page count, excluding the glossary as instructed in section L.3.6. |
| 4 | Can you please help me to get a compliant / non-compliant question answered? Our firm is working on a response to the subject RFP, but we have not had our rates audited by DCAA; therefore we do not have approved forward pricing, indirects, or ceiling rates for submission as required by the solicitation. We are able to provide pricing as required, but can not complete tabs 2 and 3 of the pricing workbook. Can we still be considered for award in this case, or are we not eligible? | 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). |
| 5 | Q: Page 121 Section L.6 requests "number of personnel employed by contract year per labor category." Our intended past performance references include task orders with up to 80 labor categories. It would be impossible to list the number of personnel employed by contract year per labor category for three years for that individual past performance reference alone in less than 7 pages. Furthermore, some of the Past Performance references are FFP contracts that do not have contractually defined labor categories. Therefore we request that labor category mix per year be eliminated as a requirement for past performance |
A: If its not applicable so state and briefly explain.
| Please clarify the intent of this answer. Our concern is that the requested information would occupy a significant amount of space within the page count for two of the contracts we are submitting, each are 10 year contracts with over 80 labor categories per contract year. This information is also requested as part of the PPQs. | Amendment 003 will increase the number of pages to 30 pages. | |
| 6 | We have additional questions related to the Government’s responses to Offeror questions as it relates to Past Performance page limitations. We recognize that the Government has increased the page count for past performance to 10 pages; however, the Government has also increased requirements for this section including the inclusion of a table contents and cover in the page count. The current page limitation for Past Performance is a significant constraint to multiple Offerors. Many teams have spent significant time and resources architecting a full solution to the INL/A requirements since the industry day over a year ago. This included engaging subcontractor teaming partners to provide INL/A with a world class solution to its IT requirements. With the 10 page limitation inclusive of all pages including cover, table of contents, and client authorization letters, this leaves insufficient space to address the RFP requirements for past performance for just the prime alone, ignoring subcontractors. The problem is further compounded by the addition of subcontractor team partners where the same information is required for each. If the Government does not provide relief on the page limitation, many Offerors will be required to jettison subcontractor teaming partners to get under the page limitation resulting in a significant negative impact to our solution. We request that the Government revise the past performance page limitation as illustrated below to not constrain Offeror solutions: |
- Cover: Limited to 1 page
- TOC: Limited to 1 page
- Introduction: Limited to 1 page
- Past Performance reference: Limited to 1 page per past performance reference
- J.19: 1 page per past performance reference
| Amendment 003 will increase the number of pages to 30 pages. | ||
| 7 | The Past Performance Questionnaire identifies the addressee as a US Federal Government point of contact, if the prime or subcontractor is a subcontractor on the past performance they wish to reference, will the government allow the Past Performance be filled out by their prime contractor on that particular contract? | |
| **Our prime contractor has been notified by their COR that they will not complete any past performance references for subcontractors. The HCA has prohibited CORs across the entire Agency not to complete past performance references for any subcontractors as the Agency does not have privity of contract with subcontractors. We respectfully request that you amend the RFP to allow Prime contractors to complete the past performance as the Federal Government does not have privity of contract with any subcontractor. ** | The USG is not obligated to fill out past performance questionnaires for subcontractors. The prime contractor is responsible. | |
| 8 | In the answers to questions there were several bidders who asked questions regarding Volume III, Past Performance, page limitations. The government replied that: “All pages will be included in the page count and page limits increased. Refer to revised table L.3.1 as per Amendment 001.” |
a) Understanding that the cover/title page, table of contents, reference templates (3 for prime and each subcontractor) and the required J.19 forms are to be included in this volume, please advise if the page count may be increased from 10 pages to a minimum of 30 pages to accommodate the government’s stated requirements.
b) If the government chooses not to increase the page limit for this volume, please advise on the government’s approach for handling bidder’s pages beyond the 10-page limit.
| c) Will the government disqualify bidders who include more than 10 pages in the past performance volume? | Amendment 003 will increase the number of pages to 30 pages. | ||
| 9 | We have compared the “Updated” PWS (released with Amendment A001) to the original PWS and cannot discern any differences between the two documents. Please advise on whether the two documents are the same, or where the differences are. Thank you! | The original PWS had SRAL information included and the “Updated PWS” deleted the SRAL information. | |
| 10 | · Original Question: Table L.3.1 lists sections for Volume VI that are different and inconsistent with the content instructions for Volume VI found in L.9.0. Should offerors (a) ignore one of the two instruction sets or (b) combine them? |
· Original Question: For Sections A, C, D, E, and F as listed at the bottom of the table, please clarify in what volume and location within a volume the Government wants these sections to be included. Some of the information in these sections aligns with sections in Volumes V and VI but not all. Please clarify.
· Original Question: “The table lists Sections A, C, D, E, and F with no number of copies. Will the government please clarify what these sections are and how they are to be submitted?”
· Original Answer (for all): Section A-C do not fall under Volume VI. Refer to revised Table L.3.1 as per Amendment 001.
| Requested Remedy: Please revise the RFP instructions to clarify where new Sections A, B, and C (revised in Amendment A-001, RFP, Section L.3) identified in Table L.3.1 are to appear in the proposal submission – as stand-alone sections in a separate, unnumbered binder or as an attachment/appendix to another volume? Additionally, please provide RFP instructions as to what is required for each of these new sections (i.e., what information is being sought for Section B, Company Information) and will this information be subject to evaluation criteria? | Amendment 003 correct Table L.3.1 | |
| 11 | Original Question: Please confirm that the following items are excluded from the page count: Cover Page/Title Page |
• Table of Contents [in each volume]
• Table of Figures/Exhibits [in each volume]
• Master Table of Contents [in Executive Summary]
• Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms [in each volume]
• Cross-reference matrix (if provided)
• Resumes
• Letters of Commitment
• Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Examples/Samples
• Total Compensation Plan (included with Volume II) Original Answer: All pages will be included in the page count and page limits increased. Refer to revised Table L.3.1 per Amendment 001.
Requested Remedy: In A-001, Section L.3.6 – Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms states “Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.” This conflicts with the instructions in L.3.2 – Page Limitations, and the Q&As. Please modify the RFP, Section L.3.6, to reflect the desired instructions for the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. L.3.2. is the authoritative instruction. Please follow the instructions listed in L.3.2.
| 12 | L.3.7 states: “Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder.” Instructions in the Q&As state: “All pages will be included in the page count and page limits increased. Refer to revised Table L.3.1 per Amendment 001.” | |
| Requested Remedy: Please revise RFP instructions at L.3.2, Page Limitations to reflect whether or not it is the Government’s intent to also include the binder cover (outside)in the page count? | The binder cover is not counted against the page count limitation. The RFP will not be amended. | |
| 13 | FedBizOpps postings on Jul 18, 2014 2:42 pm announced consolidation of the pillar contracts into a single contract entitled Department of State's Worldwide Aviation Support Services RPF SAQMMA14R0319. However, the RFP and PWS still reflect the pillared contracting approach. |
Will this affect the Associate Contractor Agreement requirement?
Requested Remedy: Please issue a formal announcement to the IT bidders regarding this consolidation and incorporate the change into the RFP and PWS. The INL Aviation program provides worldwide aviation service to support the Department of State global diplomatic mission. Consequently, the INL Aviation program is dynamic and dependent upon the Department’s need for aviation support throughout the world. It is not practical to keep the solicitation document updated to the latest mission requirements as the RFP would be amended numerous times and slow down the RFP process. Since the release of this solicitation several more task orders were issued against multiple deliver order contracts, multiple modifications issued, additional aircraft obtained, and acquisition strategies refined, etc.
The intent of the solicitation is to provide the offerors an opportunity to bid on a known requirement which represents the general scope of the work to be performed. Regardless of whether three RFPs were combined or not, the general scope related to the IT RFP remains.
Consequently, an amendment is not required when the decision was made by the Department to combine solicitations SAQMMA13R0390, SAQMMA13R0391, and SAQMMA13R0392 into one solicitation (SAQMMA14R0319).
14 Under Item 46 below it states that all profit percentages in the proposal must match the percentage in Table 4. Under item 68 below it indicates we need to show the cost build-up and the profit and/or fee applied to subcontractors. It is customary that the profit and/or fee on Subs would be different than the profit and/or fee on the Primes burdened labor cost. Based on these rules it would appear that the Government is directing that only the profit and/or fee factor in Table 4 may be used and that there is only one profit factor allowed (per item 15 below). We would prefer to bid a lower rate on the subs, but do not feel we would be in compliance with the RFP if we were to do so?
RFP Page 129
46) In the Detail Pricing Tables (for Pricing Tables 5-7), each proposed profit percentage used in the build-up of each fixed fully-loaded hourly labor rate proposed in Pricing Tables 5 and 7 shall match the respective profit percentage proposed in Pricing Table 4.
RFP Page 132
68) At this time, the Government does not require submission of subcontractor offerors’ build-up of their proposed or negotiated fully-loaded hourly labor rates, but the (prime) offeror shall show on its build-up schedule in the Detail Pricing Tables (for Pricing Tables 5-7) any applicable indirect costs and profit it applied to the subcontractor offerors’ proposed or negotiated fully-loaded hourly labor rates.
RFP Page 125
15) In Pricing Table 4, offerors shall propose one profit percentage and one fee percentage per contract period.
Please clarify:
· if we are allowed to add a profit factor to Table 4 to be applied to Subs, or
· if we may disregard this rule as it applies to Subs and use whatever fee we feel appropriate, or
· we must abide by the RFP stated rules noted above The Government stands behind its instructions, so offerors “must abide by the RFP stated rules noted above.
SAQMMA13R0393 Q & A SET 3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .