Attachment 2 Questions and Answer_20220927.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SBS0035
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
Questions and Answers 20220923
| FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | |||
| HC101322R0005 | |||
| ATTACHMENT 2 - QUESTION TEMPLATE | |||
| Question # | Questions / Comments | RFP Reference | Government Response |
| 001 | Would the government provide the PWS in word format for vendor utilization in replying to the RFP? | Document "HC101322R0005" PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT | Posted MS Word version of the PWS to sam.gov RFP listing. |
| 002 | Table L2.5.1 lists the Volume 2 contents as: Technical/management Volume - 20 Pages Service Readiness (Gate) (Factor 1) - 5 Pages Example Service Management Plan (Factor 2) - 15 Pages Are these 3 separate sections totaling 40 pages of content or do the 5 pages for Factor 1 and the 15 pages for Factor 2 total 20 pages of content for the volume? | HC101322R0005L2.5.1Page 162 | The Technical/Management volume is in addition to the factor page limitations of (Factor 1 (5), Factor 2 (15) requirements. The Technical Volume should be no more than 40 pages, apart from exclusions previously allowed in Section L. |
| 003 | Section M2.1(b) states in part "Offerors shall submit an Example Service Management Plan as part of their proposal. The Government will evaluate whether the Example Service Management Plan sufficiently meets the following requirements…"What criteria will evaluators apply to determine if the Example Service Management Plan sufficiently meets these requirements? | HC101322R0005M2.1(b)Page 172 | Section M2.2 states how the offeror will be rated acceptable, The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below in Table 2-1 for each subfactor. Proposals must address all the criteria in Section M2.1 to be rated “Acceptable.” M2.1(b) will be used to evaluate whether the Example Service Management Plan sufficiently meets the following requirements listed under PWS Section 6.6.10: |
| 004 | The SAM.Gov posting does not include the CDRLs. |
• Section L2.3 (page 161) states in part “The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).”
• Section L2.7 (page 164) states in part “The offeror shall fill out the Requirements Traceability Matrix Attachment 4 of this RFP indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the RFP, PWS, CLIN numbers, and CDRL references found therein.”
• In our read of the solicitation package, no Contract Data Requirements List was provided. In the remainder of the package, only one CDRL (CDRL 0018) is referenced (Table 6-4, page 30), the numbering of which suggests that there are additional CDRLs not mentioned in the text.
• In order to ensure bidder compliance with the instructions, will the Government provide the complete Contract Data Requirements List? HC101322R0005 L2.3 Page 161 L2.7 Page 164 Table 6-4 Page 30 Reference to CDRLs in the PLEO RFP is an error; there is no CDRL List for this procurement. All deliverables associated with the PLEO PWS are defined in PWS Table 6-3 Task 7, Initial Task Order Deliverables; PWS Table 6-4, Section 6 Deliverables and Table 7-3, Section 7 Deliverables. The following changes will be made to the RFP:
1. Parenthetical reference to CDRL 0018 in Table 6-4 (RFP Page 30) will be removed. 2. Reference to Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) in section L2.3 a. (page 161) of RFP will be removed.
3. Reference to Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) in second paragraph of section L2.7 (page 164) of RFP will be removed.
| 005 | Page 124 of the RFP lists attachment 9 Acronym list. Would the government add this to the attachment provided? (We only see 8 attachments) | Section J - List of Attachments | Acronym List attachment reference is in error no acronym list was provided, acronyms are spelled out with first use in the documentation. Reference will be removed. |
| 006 | Vendor seeks clarification regarding the language in paragraph 12.2 of the Performance Work Statement, which reads, “All personnel performing on or supporting a DISA contract in any way shall be United States citizens. The prime vendor will utilize domestic and foreign vendors to accomplish the contract with foreign employees for this global requirement touching several countries (For example shipping). Would utilizing a Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) - mitigated entity, having received approval from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency prime awardee vendor U.S. citizens to coordinate foreign employees for contract execution meet the PWS 12.2 requirements? | PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 12.2 Security Clearance | Yes. Utilizing a Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) - mitigated entity, having received approval from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency prime awardee vendor U.S. citizens to coordinate foreign employees for contract execution would meet the PWS 12.2 requirements. |
| 007 | Section M2.1 describes an evaluation that addresses only Factors 1 and 2, which are limited to 5 and 15 pages respectively in table L.2.5.1. However, Question 2 references an additional 20 page section, described as a "Technical/Management Volume”, of the 40-page technical approach submission that is not part of the source selection approach described in section M. Can the Government confirm that the additional 20 pages ascribed to Technical Volume will be evaluated as part of Factor 1. (Note that if these additional 20 pages are not evaluated as part of Factor 1 then they cannot be evaluated at all, per instructions in Section M.) | Q&A 002, Q&A Response 20220926. The Government’s response states: The Technical/Management volume is in addition to the factor page limitations of (Factor 1 (5), Factor 2 (15) requirements. The Technical Volume should be no more than 40 pages, apart from exclusions previously allowed in Section L. | Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. The technical volume is provided from the Offerors to demonstrate to the Government how they meet all solicitation requirements. Per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements and objectives having an impact on the source selection decision and which are expected to be discriminators or are required by statute/regulation. The Government has allocated 5 page(s) to factor 1, and 15 pages to factor 2. The remaining 20 pages are for the Offeror to respond technically to the needs of the solicitation/PWS requirements that are not otherwise called out/addressed in the technical factors. |
| 008 | Similar to FCSA, can an organization be both a Prime on one proposal and a Subcontractor on another? Due to the extensive nature of the RFP PWS, an 'over and under' approach with certain organizations will benefit CSCO in obtaining the best TO proposals and options. Please confirm that an organization that submits a Prime bid will be allowed to support another organization's Prime bid as a Subcontractor? | General | Yes an orgainzation can submit a Prime bid and support another organization's Prime bid as a subcontractor. There is no restriction on the number of subcontracting or partnership relationships one company can establish. The Government wanting to see the most robust competition and options possible. |
| 009 | Q&A 002 provides 40 pages total for the technical/management volume. Section M only provides evaluation for factor 1 (5 pages) and factor 2 (15 pages). Will the Government please clarify the third evaluation factor, what content it should include, and update Section M to include evaluation of this additional content? | Q&A / M2.1 | Confirming there is NO factor 3. Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. The technical volume is provided from the Offerors to demonstrate to the Government how they meet all solicitation requirements. Per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements and objectives having an impact on the source selection decision and which are expected to be discriminators or are required by statute/regulation. Additionally, The Government has allocated 5 page(s) to factor 1, and 15 pages to factor 2. The remaining 20 pages are for the Offeror to respond technically to the needs of the solicitation/PWS requirements that are not otherwise called out/addressed in the technical factors. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .