QuestionsAnswers_for_Solicitation_SBAHQ18Q003.pdf

Questions/Answers for Solicitation SBAHQ-18-Q-0003

Miscellaneous Topics Relevant to Women and Business for the National Women’s Business Council

1. I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

The NWBC considers this requirement to be a brand new solicitation separate from any active award done prior. Therefore, no incumbent has performed the services of this specific new requirement.

2. On page 2 of the “Instructions” bullet “page limit” – it identifies “references” - there appears to be no requirement to provide “references” in the solicitation. Please clarify whether specific references (other than identifying past performance, if any) are required to be submitted in the

RFQ.

Five years of prior experience, which can be verified and evaluated by the government as a reference, should be submitted for evaluation. Contractors will be evaluated on past performance/references based off of the criteria outlined in the “instructions to offerors” section “b”. Providing the evaluator with sufficient information to ensure that past performance and qualifications are properly assessed will allow for a thorough evaluation.

3. On page 2 of the “Instructions” bullet “page limit” – it states proposal should be no longer than 10 pages. Please confirm whether the 10 page total includes technical approach, past performance, and projected cost & timeline of each task in the PWS ; and does NOT include 5-page writing sample, company credentials/capability statement and references (if required based upon Q1 above).

The 10 page limit is restricted to the technical approach and does not include the 5-page writing sample, company credentials, and references.

4. The “Synopsis” in the Notice states offeror must be compliant with “lowest price technically acceptable;” however, Cost/Price Factor in instructions state “Contracting officer may consider award to other than lowest priced offeror when in the best interest of the government.” Please clarify the award determination.

Contracting officer may consider award to other than lowest priced offeror when in the best interest of the government.

5. Task A in the PWS does not identify a requirement for a “peer review” of the “Literature Review and Descriptive Data Analysis” although Task B does identify peer review for the final report.

However, under the Task A deliverables it has an “external peer review (two).” Please clarify whether a “peer review” is required for Task A.

Two independent peer reviews are required for Task A.

6. The ------------------ would be well positioned to do this work. Unfortunately, it is a small business set aside - disqualifying us. Do these ever change? E.G. Where the vendor community is opened up/the set aside restriction removed?

It is possible that this could change, however it is our intent to compete this requirement as a small business set-aside.

7. My small business is interested in submitting a proposal for "Research on Miscellaneous Topics Relevant to Women and Business". However, we are not yet on the GSA schedule. Can you tell me if being on the GSA schedule is required for this opportunity.

You do not need to have a GSA schedule to submit a proposal for this opportunity.

8. The deliverable schedule on pages 4-7 of the performance work statement indicates a requirement for "peer review (2)" in both Tasks A&B. Should we assume that this refers to a peer review involving 2 qualified individuals of both the research methodology (Task A) and the final paper developed as a result of the research (Task B). If so, can you please indicate if the researchers should identify the individuals to serve as peer reviewers and that payment for the peer review should be included in the research budget or if the SBA will provide the peer reviewers and associated costs?

A final paper as a deliverable is required for Task A and therefore would require an intendent peer review. Should the NWBC choose to pursue Task B, an additional independent peer review would be required for the Task B report. These reports should be viewed as two separate deliverables which require independent peer review. The NWBC intends to procure a Fixed Price Purchase Order and will not directly provide the peer reviewers and associated costs. Peer reviewers must be approved by the NWBC and have knowledge in the specific area of research.