TIRNO-09-R-00013_Questions and Answers_A0013.xls
XLS spreadsheet 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TIPSS-4 Small Business (SB) RFP
- Solicitation number
- TIRNO-09-R-00013
About this file
TIRNO-09-R-00013_A0013
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 101 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| Contractor's Name | ||||
| TIPSS- 4 Government Response to Questions - Offerors Within the Competitive Range | ||||
| RFP No. TIRNO-09-R-00013 | ||||
| # | RFP Reference | Question | Governemnt Response to General Questions | |
| Include Specific RFP Section and Page Number | Please state the question or comment as it pertains to the solicitation documents. | |||
| 1 | Section 7 L.10.2.1 Offer Acceptance Period - Page 5 | As per the final proposal revison requirement the offeror's acceptance period is required to be no less than 150 days, however the period of performance starts from 04/30/2011. Is it going to take 6 more months to get awarded? | The six months are available for the Government to have ample time for unseeable events. This is a major, long-term acquisition and getting to award takes longer than typical short-term acquisitions. | |
| 2 | Amendment 12, | |||
| Section L.8.1, Instructions, Pg 3-4 | The instructions for BINDER 2 state: "Responses to all discussion items via the Government's letter dated February 18, 2011, must be addressed in sequential order as follows (if applicable):" |
It is our intent to respond to the discussion items only and NOT resubmit the entire proposal.
| Question: Is this the correct way to proceed? | Yes | |
| 3 | Amendment 12, | |
| Section L.8.1, Instructions, Pg 3-4 | The instructions for BINDER 2 state: "Responses to all discussion items via the Government's letter dated February 18, 2011, must be addressed in sequential order as follows (if applicable):" |
Responding to a discussion item may require making a change to the proposal, such as replacing one of the key personnel positions or substituting one of the past performance references. Our preferred way to proceed would be to provide a response to the discussion items which explains the change followed by the replacement table, graph, paragraph or resume.
| Question: Would this be the appropriate way to respond? | Yes | |
| 4 | Amendment 12, | |
| Section L.8.1, Instructions, Pg 3-4 | Section L.8.1 of the original Solicitation contains various page limitations. However, Section L.8.1 of Amendment 12 does not make any reference to page limitations. Based on this assume that there are no page limitations placed upon the response to discussion items, so long as the response is reasonable and complete. |
| Question: Is this correct? | No. Unless otherwise stated in Amendment 11, the instructions as stated in Section L of the original solicitation are still in full force and effect. | |
| 5 | Amendment 12, |
Section L.8.1 "Binder 3 final proposal Rev-price" page 4 The Amendment instructions for BINDER 3 do not address the proper way to handle a circumstance when the cost basis and/or assumptions described in our original Cost Proposal and used to calculate price have changed since 2009.
Although Amendment 12 includes Attachment J.4, there are no instructions regarding completion or inclusion of Attachment J.4 in the submission. Since the information in Attachment J.4 drives the calculations of the subtotals in J.1.1 we believe it is appropriate for J.4 to be completed and included in Binder 3.
We propose, in adddition to submitting: Tab A: Summary Schedule (Attachment J.1.1 Rev 1) and Tab B: Section B.2, to also submit a summary of changes and updates to other areas in Binder 3 of our orginal proposal, such as: Summary and Detail Scheduled (Original Proposal, Binder 3, Tab B), Written Narrative (Original Proposal Binder 3, Tab C), and Contract Principal (Original Proposal, Binder 3, Tab D)...etc.
| Question: Is this acceptable? | Part 1: Update your proposal accordingly in accordance with all applicable amendments. Part 2: Refer to Section L.12. Part 3: Please follow the directions in Amendment 0011. | |
| 6 | Amendment 12, | |
| Section L.8.2, Format, Pg 4 | This offeror added a prefix to the government-provided Section, Paragraph, and sub-paragraph number designating the "volume number or binder number". For example, the solicitation describes various requirements for "Management/Business Operations Support Services (MBOSS) Principal Task Area" in Section C.6.1. Our proposal provided the response to this information in Section 2.C.6.1. |
| Question: Provided the letter from the IRS dated February 18 contained no discussion item regarding clarification or modification to the usage of this prefix, may we proceed as instructed and only address in our response those discussion items which were in the letter? | Refer to Government's response in Question 6. | |||
| 7 | Section H.19 Substitution of Corporate and Task Order Level Key Personnel | If there is a change in Corporate Level Key Personnel, does the government desire a proposed replacement personnel in the Final Proposal Revision response or during contract negotiations? | Yes, the FPR. | |
| 8 | Section L.8.1 | We understand the requirements for revisions to our proposal to mean that original page limits for each section to remain (e.g., even though changes are being made to a Key Personnel Resume, the page limit remains 2 pages). Can you please confirm this assumption to be true? | That is correct | |
| 9 | Section L.8.1 | For Past Experience (Binder 2A), are we allowed to substitute past experience profiles (e.g., to include a project that was not available for our original submission)? | No | |
| 10 | Section L.8.1, Pg 3, Amendment 0012 | While the section contains general structure information, does the government only want responses to the questions asked or complete revised proposal section referenced? Please clarify. Additionally, if revisions are requested should "Redlines" be used to reflect changes? | Only address specific discussion items as identified. Easily identifying changes is appreciated. | |
| 11 | Section L.8.2, Pg 4, Amendment 0012 | This section identifies four components to be included on "the outside of the box and on the spine and cover of the binder". One component includes "Box__ of __ box(es)." Does this mean each binder has to be contained in a separate box? Or Does the instruction only apply to the outside of the box? Please clarify. | No; only the outside of the box. | |
| 12 | Section L.8.1, Pg 3, Amendment 0012 | The instructions state that offerors "within the competitive range must submit a cover letter with a statement to the Contracting Officer…" Binder 1, Tab A states that the offeror is to submit a Transmittal Letter.." Is the Cover Letter different from the Transmittal Letter? If so, where is the Cover Letter to be placed in the revised submission, Inside or outside the Binders? Within each Binder? Other? | Cover letter and transmittal letter are the same. | |
| 13 | Amendment 12, | |||
| Section L.8.2, Format, Pg 4 | This offeror added a prefix to the government-provided Section, Paragraph, and sub-paragraph number designating the "volume number or binder number". For example, the solicitation describes various requirements for "Management/Business Operations Support Services (MBOSS) Principal Task Area" in Section C.6.1. Our proposal provided the response to this information in Section 2.C.6.1. |
| Question: Provided the letter from the IRS dated February 18 contained no discussion item regarding clarification or modification to the usage of this prefix, may we proceed as instructed and only address in our response those discussion items which were in the letter? | Only respond to your specific discussion items per the February 18th letter. | |||
| 14 | L.8 (Page Number 3) FORMAT AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION SUBMISSION | We understand that we are responsible to provide a technical response addressing only the discussion items sent to the contractor by the IRS. Is their a page count limitation for our technical response ? | Refer to Government's response to Question 4. | |
| 15 | L.8 (Page Number 4) BINDER 3: Final Proposal Revision - Price | Do we still need to submit the entire Binder 3 cost proposal if there is no change in our original Binder 3 (Volume III – Binder 3 – Cost and Price Proposal)? | That is information that would need to be provided to the Government (i.e. Cover letter/Transmittal letter). | |
| 16 | L.8.1 (Page Number 1) INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION SUBMISSION | |||
| Each offeror determined to be within the competitive range must submit a cover letter with a statement to the Contracting Officer indicating their understanding of the discussion items. Proposal responses are requested to be returned as indicated below (number of binders and CDs). Binders and CDs must be labeled appropriately. | Please clarify the page limitation for the cover letter. | One page | ||
| 17 | Binder 2, Tabs A thru E | The discusion items received on February 18 focus only on our Past Performance, Management Approach and Pricing. Is it the government's intent to have the offeror to provide a complete proposal (all pages of our proposal response to include the revised information) or should the offeror only provide the response or clarification to the areas that were identified in the February 18 letter? | Only respond to your specific discussion items per the February 18th letter. | |
| 18 | SF-33, Section 14 | FedBizOpps.gov refers to the current amendment, dated 02/28/2011 as Amendment 11. Section 14 of the SF-33 refers to the current amendment as Amendment 12 and references an Amendment 11 dated 10/13/2010 which does not appear on FedBizOpps.gov. Please clarify. | This was an error; it has been corrected. | |
| 19 | Section L.8.1, Pg 3 | This section does not specify how the deficiencies cited in the discussion items should be addressed; that is whether (a) Direct responses ("clarification statements") to the discussion items, only; or (b) Resubmitted proposal section(s), where original proposal text is rewritten to address the discussion item and correct the deficiency. Would the Government define what it wishes to receive from bidders in response to their discussion items? | The Government has identified a deficiency. This is your opportunity to address the concern stated in your February 18, 2011 letter. | |
| 20 | Section L.8.1, Pg 3 | If the Government's intent is to receive clarification statements only, is there a space limitation on the responses provided? | Unless stated in Amendment 11 or in your discussion letter, all instructions in the original solicitation as still in full force and effect. | |
| 21 | General and RFP Section M | If the Government's intent is to receive clarification statements only, how will the responses be evaluated and "scoring" applied to the scoring/comparative ranking of offeror proposals as they currently stand? | Evaluations will be conducted based on the criteria found in Section M. | |
| 22 | Section L.8.1, Pg 3 | If the Government's intent, instead, is to receive re-submitted proposal sections/pages that address the deficiencies, then, given that responding to certain discussion items may require significant added text, will the Government grant additional pages within a proposal section to accommodate the new material? (If this is not permitted, offerors would need to delete existing proposal material, thereby changing their original offers and, perhaps, dimishing the quality of these submissions and creating new deficiencies.) | The Government will not grant additional pages. Your response to address the discussion item(s) in your letter are still bound by the original page limitations. | |
| 23 | Section L.8.1, Pg 3 | If the Government's intent is to receive re-submitted proposal sections/pages that address the deficiencies, responding to certain discussion items could require the changing of original proposal text, rather than simply adding information. Are there any guidelines related to the modifying of original proposal text in response to the discussion items? | Only respond to your specific discussion items per the February 18th letter. | |
| 24 | Section L.19, Pg 1 (A0012) | If the Government is unable to meet its stated deadline for return of answers to questions, or certain answers bring about substantial redirection of offeror efforts, would the Government consider reinstating the original due date of the final proposal revision to March 16, 2011? | No. | |
| 25 | Section L.8.1, Pg 4 BINDER 3 | Does the Government require any documentation or a writeup that supports any changes to the summary schedule from the original tables submitted with the proposal? | Not required, but any assistance in locating changes easily is appreciated. | |
| 26 | SECTION L.19 - RETURN OF OFFERS & Standard Form (SF) 33, pg 5 | Please confirm that final proposal revisions from offerors pre-determined by the Government to be within competitive are due no later than March 16, 2011 rather than March 16, 2010 | Refer to Amendment 12. |
&CAttachment J.14 - Request For Proposal Questions and Comments
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .