RFP_Attach_7-Answers_to_Questions_11-17-15.pdf

As of 11/17/2015

RFP SP330016R0016 for LAN-WAN Telecommuncations for DDSP

Q&A as of 11/3/2015

Q1: Regarding the Telecommunications Planning and Maintenance requirement under the solicitation number SP330016R0016. I'd like to know if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing the services? If so, can you please provide the incumbent contract information?

A1: The LAN/WAN requirement is not new. The incumbent is NES associates on SP3300-11-C-1025; continued contract from SP3300-10-C-0018.

Q2: According to FBO this contract will be awarded to a SDVOSB. What contract vehicle will be used (i.e. Vets GWAC, GSA schedule)?

A2: the decision was made by the Contracting Officer to compete this procurement open market as the Synopsis states, resulting in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract IAW FAR Parts 12 & 15.

Q3: I see that this is listed as a “set aside” for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. Does this exclude us because as the Owner I am not service-disabled, yet we have service-disabled employees on staff? Do we need secure a GSA contract or what prerequisites are required to be able to submit a response to your RFP when released?

A3: In order to be able to compete on this solicitation, offerors must be a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Concern (SDVOSBC). Refer to FAR Subpart 19.14--Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program.

Q4: I was wondering if a site visit is scheduled.

A4: A site visit is not planned as it has been determined not necessary to submit a proposal.

Q5: In the event the prime is awaiting approval of a Facility Security Clearance at the time of RFP closing, will the COR allow the awarded vendor to use its sub-contractor (submitted as a RFP Response Team member’s) facility clearance?

A5: No.

Q6: There seems to be some conflicting information on the DLA PWS in reference to the period of performance.

Section 1 Introduction 4th paragraph reads: “The work performed and completed by this performance work statement shall be for a period of one (1) base year with one, six-month option period, following contract award, and shall be limited to the technical support area of data telecommunications.” and Section 1.2.1 Period Of Performance states: A. The period of performance for the contract action will be for one (1) base year with four

(4) one (1) year option periods. Can you provide some clarification?

A6: Section 1 Introduction 4th paragraph is the correct description.

“The work performed and completed by this performance work statement shall be for a period of one (1) base year with one, six-month option period, following contract award, and shall be limited to the technical support area of data telecommunications.”

Q7: I would just like to confirm that the proposal submission date for the above referenced SDVOSB Set Aside RFP is in fact 23 Nov 2015 as opposed to the Solicitation Cover page that states a contrasting date of 17 Nov 2015?

A7: Amendment 0001 was posted to FBO on 3 Nov 2015 correcting Page 1 to read 23 Nov 2015, 1600 hrs.

Q&A as of 11/17/2015

Q8: Will the Government please advise why providing information technology support services would create a conflict of interest, or remove this OCI clause from the Solicitation?

A8: The Government recommends that the potential offeror revisit the OCI clause in the solicitation. The OCI clause describes contractor limitations/restrictions on the use of certain information gained through the performance/execution of the tasks listed in the PWS.

Q9: Will the Government please confirm that the Offeror is not required to provide the unburdened labor rates for each labor category?

A9: The Government confirms. Amendment 0002 will remove “unburdened” from RFP Page 32.

Q10: RFP Pg. 1 Block 8 says the due date for the proposal is 17 November. However, on RFP Pg. 24 item 3 it states the proposal is due 23 November. Will the government please clarify?

A10: See Answer 8.

Q11: RFP pg. 4 paragraph 3 indicates that DLA Distribution is looking at a 10% cost reduction during this competition. Has the government conducted an ICE, or what is the evaluation criteria being used to ensure that price realism is being established to prevent “low balling” of proposed quotes? This is critical in that this has been established as an LPTA-based evaluation.

A11: The Government is not soliciting for the “same old way” of doing business. The Government encourages proposals that will achieve savings through innovative processes. As stated in the solicitation, offerors are advised that unrealistically low price, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand this requirement, or has made an incautious proposal. Additionally, the solicitation states that the Government will perform a price analysis to determine the reasonableness of proposed price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(B)(2). The Government will utilize a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness (see FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)). In addition the Government will utilize a comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar items, if both the validity of the comparison and the reasonableness of the previous price(s) can be established. The proposed price between offers that are determined to be technically acceptable will be the determining factor in the selection of a proposal for award.

Q12: RFP pg. 4 paragraph 5 states the due date for proposal submission as 4:00 PM on Monday, 23 November 2015. Please specify time zone associated (i.e. EST).

A12: FAR Provision 52.212-1, #2, at page 24 of the solicitation, indicates Eastern Time zone. In addition, FBO website response date entry selection indicates “Eastern” time zone.

Q13: What is the historical LOE (level of effort) associated with the Predecessor Contract SP3300-11-C-1025?

Does the government anticipate or have had in the past any requirements for surge support in the conduct of the current contract?

A13: The Government recommends that the potential offeror revisit the provision 52.212-1 Instruction to offerors, page 29 of 54, under sub factor B, Staffing Plan, in the solicitation, for the Government’s estimate of annual effort level, comprised of 2 FTEs. There is no expectation of any SURGE requirements.

Q14: As per the section “Management of Contractor Employees”, the RFP states The Contractor shall not supervise, direct, or control the activities of the Government personnel or the employee of any other contractor, except any subcontractor employed by the Contractor on this contract. Are there currently government employees performing the same or similar work roles alongside the proposed contractor employees? If so, how is their work being controlled or distributed, and what is the government’s view on how the contractor employee’s “divide” or distribute workloads?

A14: Yes. Gov’t workload is distributed as tickets, such as I.T. incidents and/or work order, as they are encountered via the helpdesk mgt. software. Contractor workload will be divided or distributed in a similar fashion.

Q15: As per the section “Organizational Conflict of Interest” part (a), the RFP states the contractor shall be ineligible from participation as a contractor, subcontractor, or consultant in any procurement arising or resulting from any of the services provided to DDC on this contract. What services or activities being performed as a result of this contract award are estimated to cause such an OCI concern in the government’s view that the awardee should be precluded from any other work within DDC?

A15: The Government recommends that the potential offeror revisit the OCI clause in the solicitation. The OCI clause describes contractor limitations/restrictions on the use of certain information gained through the performance/execution of the task listed in the PWS. An example of such information could be, but not limited to, internal Government details relating to an upcoming procurement, on a Government database.

Q16: The final entry in the QASP Summary Table (Closing Remedy Tickets) does not reflect the previously stated APL found in QASP section 4.0.4.1.2; the QASP states 98% closure within 24 hours of resolution while section 4.0.4.1.2 states two (2) business days. Please indicate the correct APL.

A16: TABLE 5.0.0 of RFP Attachment 2 – QASP- under performance metric “Closing Remedy Tickets”, APL “98% of Remedy tickets shall be closed within 24 hours of issue resolution” amended to read “98% of Remedy tickets shall be closed within 2 business days of issue resolution” to match section 4.0.4.1.2 of the QASP.

Q17: Quality Control Plan references “The Contractor shall provide their final QCP no later than (NLT) 10 calendar days after the start of full performance in accordance with paragraph 6.6B.” However, looking at the PWS, it seems there is not a paragraph 6.6B. Can the government clarify what is considered the “start of full performance or provide 6.6B?

A17: PWS Section 6.4 A. has been updated to read in part…” The Contractor shall provide their final QCP no later than (NLT) 10 calendar days after the start of full performance, which begins 1 April 2016.

This full performance date is set to begin after the 1 month phase-in period of 1 to 31 March, 2016.”

Amendment 0002 will delete the reference to a Section 6.6B in the PWS.