Updated QA W91RUS24R0020 AITEL6JUN .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91RUS24R00200003
About this file
This document is a solicitation amendment for a federal contract opportunity issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground. The contract is for The 160th Theater Signal Brigade, Administration, Information Technology Engineering and Logistical Support (AITEL) for Southwest Asia and Central Asia. The contractor will provide a full range of staff support services including administrative, operations, information systems engineering, and logistics support. The primary places of performance are Kuwait and Qatar, with potential expansion to other locations in Southwest Asia or Central Asia. The contract will be a non-commercial, cost-reimbursable, single "C" type contract awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government. The solicitation instructs offerors on the required proposal volumes, page limits, and submission details. It also addresses various questions and clarifications related to the cost workbook, past performance requirements, and other solicitation terms.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| B08 W91RUS24R00200002 Cfrm 6JUN.pdf | ||
| B08 W91RUS24R00200002 Mod 6JUN.pdf | ||
| Appendix_B_Performance_Requirements_Summary.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix A-Plans and Reports AITEL Recompete Package (1).docx | DOCX document | |
| SignedSecond Solicitation DD Form 254 160th AITEL recompete20240423.pdf | ||
| B08 W91RUS24R00200003 Mod 7JUN.pdf | ||
| W91RUS24R0020 Revised CostWorkbook.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Appendix_C_Manning_Requirement.docx | DOCX document | |
| G2v1_20240322_Final 22-05 AITEL Recompete PWS as Of 25March2024.docx | DOCX document | |
| B08 W91RUS24R00200003 Cfrm 6JUN.pdf |
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
| W91RUS24R0020 | |||||
| AITEL - SOLICITATION QUESTIONS | |||||
| QUESTION DUE; 24 MAY 2024 | |||||
| SOLICITATION DUE: 16 JUNE 2024 | |||||
| SECTION | PAGE NUMBER | PARAGRAPH # | QUESTION TO GOVERNMENT | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| L.8 | 190, 193 | Will the Government please clarify whether Offerors shall complete a PDF copy of the Schedule B (Section B of the RFP)? The RFP conflicts on this. Page 190 implies yes "Offerors shall submit pricing for all CLINs/SLINs as formatted in Schedule B of the solicitation", but page 193 states completing the workbook satisfies all Schedule B requirements "Completing the schedule B-CLINs worksheet within the cost workbook meets this requirement". | Offerors do not need to submit a PDF copy of Schedule B. | ||
| L.8 | 190, 193 | If the Government desires a PDF copy of the Schedule B (Section B of the RFP), will the Government please clarify where this shall be included? (General Volume, Cost Volume, separate) | Offerors do not need to submit a PDF copy of Schedule B. | ||
| Sanitized Copies | 180 | Will the Government please clarify if separate sanitized and unsanitized copies of the WBS and staffing worksheet are required, if the "unsanitized" copy also doesn't contain identifying information ("sanitized" and "unsanitized" copies would be identical)? | Per Section L.6.7.a.iii, a SANTIZIED version is required. | ||
| L.1.7, L.3.9, L.8.14 | 224 of 266 | RFP L.1.7, Table 2 of RFP L.3.9 and RFP L.8.14 all identify a requirement for only unsantized cost notes and cost workbook, whereas RFP L.2.6 requires "one version of the entire proposal, including the SANITIZED and UNSANITIZED versions for both the technical and cost volumes". Will the Government please confirm that sanitized cost volumes (notes/workbooks) are NOT required as part of the submission? | Volume IV, Cost/Price are UNSANITIZED versions only. | ||
| L.1.8 | 223 of 266 | L.1.8 and other references requires offerors to submit all four volumes, including past performance, which is only evaluated using CPAR references. Will the Government confirm that no submission of a Volume III Past Performance via PIEE is actually required? | See the answer to the question on row 25. | ||
| L.4.7 | 227 of 266 | L.4.7.e requires each file to consist of a table of contents and narrative discussion. Will the Government confirm that that requirement does not apply to the cost workbook in Excel? | The Table of Contents and narrative discussion do not apply to the Cost Workbook in Excel. | ||
| DFARS 252.215-7009 | 250 of 266 | The instructions to submit the proposal adequacy checklist are included with Volume 1 - General. The proposal adequacy checkist pertains to cost data that is found in the cost volume. Will the Government please clarify where the proposal adequacy checklist should be located? With Volume 1 - General, or with Volume 4 - Cost? | The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is included as part of Volumne I - General. | ||
| Cost Workbook | Base Summary Tab | Will the government confirm that the base period plugs for Travel, Housing Vehicles, Non materials, and OT call out should be the equal to the option period plugs since the base period is now 12 months? Currently the base period plugs are prorated for 10 months. | The Government has revised the cost workbook to reflect 12 months base months. | ||
| RFP Section G.3 | |||||
| 152 | Will the Government please confirm that Offerors shall include PTO and mandatory federal holidays in the WBS buildup, which shall match the Section G LOE, 452,879 hours? | Offerors shall include PTO and mandatory federal holidays in the WBS buildup. | |||
| RFP Section G.3 | |||||
| 152 | For calculating total level of effort (LOE) during this program, we recommend using the traditional 2,080 hours per year vice the current 2,087 hours pers year – adding 8 X 42 hours for each period of performance where a leap year occurs. The current 2,087 hours is based on the average number of work days in each year over a 28-year period (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/computing-hourly-rates-of-pay-using-the-2087-hour-divisor/), when in fact this effort only covers 5 years plus the 2-month phase in. | The Government shall use 2,087 hours per year. | |||
| RFP Section G.3 | |||||
| 152 | The 452,879 hours level of effort (LoE) -- using the 2,087 hours per year – accounts for 42 full time equivalents (FTE) over 62 months. How should vendors account for the additional hours required for the Mail and Distribution Support personnel (PWS 3.2.2) in the Appendix C Manning Requirements? | The offerors approach to account for the Mail and Distrobution Support hours should be reflected in the proposal. | |||
| RFP Section G.4 | 153 | The RFP stipulates detrimental conclusions (show casue, default or marginal or unsatisfactory CPAR ratings if Contractor incur a cost overrun during a period of performance. If the Government provides the "negative" ratings, would the Government also revise the solicitation so that if there is a cost underrun, "positive" ratings such as Exceptional or Good are provided (based on the percent under the threshold) to incentivize lower costs? | The governmetn has amended Section G.4 to address cost underrun and "positive" ratings in CPARS. | ||
| Appendix C - Manning Requirement | Will the Government please confirm that no deviations from Appendix C Manning Requirement are permitted? | Deviations from Appendix C, Manning Requirement are not authorized. | |||
| L.1 | 224 | Shall teaming partners submit their proprietary data via email or use PIEE? | Teaming partners shall submit proposals, including proprietary data, via PIEE. | ||
| PWS 3.1 | PWS Para 3.1 “Project Management”: The PWS states “The Contractor shall also designate an individual authorized to act in the PM’s absence. Designations shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR), by e-mail, 10 days prior to contract performance.” Question: Is this 10 days prior to the beginning of the Phase-In Period, or 10 days prior to the start of the Base Year? | The alternate PM shall be identitifed 10 days prior to contract performance of which the Phase In period is part. | |||
| Appendix C | Appendix C - Manning Requirement ("Notes"). Note 4 states "4. Sections are separated duties located within the BDE or BN "S" areas or". The sentence ends abruptly and it appears there is more information to be provided. Can the Government provide an updated "Appendix C - Manning Requirement" where Note 4 is complete? | 4. Sections are separated duties located within the BDE or BN "S" areas. | |||
| RFP Section M | 262 | RFP Section M, FACTOR II -PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (Page 262). The RFP states “The past performance shall be done using CPARS. This factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that are at least somewhat relevant to the solicitation and PWS requirements.” Can the Government clarify how they will select which CPARS are considered for evaluation? | The government will consider all CPARS reports that meet the definition of relevant and recent as stated in the solicitation. | ||
| RFP Section L.7 | 235 | RFP Section L.7 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR TWO) (Page 235). The only “instructions to offerors” for Volume III (Past Performance) state “Shall be done using CPARS.” Given the diversity of tasks to be performed, and the OCONUS work locations, are offerors to provide contract details from which associated CPARS can be retrieved and evaluated? | See the answer to the question on row 25. | ||
| RFP Sectioin L.7 | 235 | RFP Section L.7 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR TWO) (Page 235). The only “instructions to offerors” for Volume III state “Shall be done using CPARS.” “Relevancy” often may not be apparent in a CPARS document as they rarely, if ever, contain Relevancy information. In what format would the Government want past performance citations to be submitted, within which offerors can map the relevancy of current/previous contracts to the requirements of this solicitation (as stated in Section M) and provide the contract data needed to retrieve CPARS data? | The offeror shall provide contract details that map the relevance of current/previous contrracts to the requirements of this solicitation and provide the contract number needed to retrieve the needed CPARS report. The offeror is limited to 10 CPARS references and that any subcontractor is limited to 10 CPARS references | ||
| RFP Section L.1 | RFP Section L.1 INTRODUCTION, Item 1 (from Amendment 1). Amendment 01 clarified that the due date for AITEL proposals is 16 June 2024 at 1600 hrs (MST). Can the Government confirm their intent to have proposals due on a Sunday? | The proposal due date is by 1600 (MST) on 16 June 2024. | |||
| RFP SectionB | RFP Section B [Items 0004 (+"AA" and "AB"); 1104 (+"AA" and "AB"); 1204 (+"AA" and "AB"); 2104 (+"AA"); 2204 (+"AA"); 3104 (+"AA"); 3204 (+"AA"); 4104 (+"AA"); 4204 (+"AA"); 5104 (+"AA"); and 5204 (+"AA")]. Without a list of required Materials (ODCs) or the ability to perform a site visit to understand the usage schedule of materials, the Government needs to provide offerors a list of materials to generate a reasonable estimate of Materials to be bid. Without this clear information, all offerors (besides the incumbent) are at a severe disadvantage in terms of pricing. In lieu of this list of materials, would the Government provide NTE "plug" numbers for the annual Materials CLINs? | If an offeror determines material costs are required they are to propose those costs and provide detailed documentation about the materials. | |||
| RFP l.8.1.a | As stated in RFP para. L.8.1.a, the Contractor is expected to shift baseline resources as needed to accommodate the AITEL mission as it evolves over time. Can the Government confirm that the contractor can move funds from govt provided ceiling estimates from one location to another within the same CLINs as needed during the period of performance? | Realingment of funds is dependent on funding type applied to each line item. The Government intends to realign funds as much as possible. | |||
| General Pricing Question | General Pricing Question: Does the Government prefer contractors to include local sponsor fees within the rates, such as housing, or should those be broken out separately? Can the Government confirm that these costs should be included in the ODCs- Non Materials CLIN? | Local sponsorship fees shall be included in Non_Materials (ODCs) line items. | |||
| RFP L.8.5.l | RFP para. L.8.5.l: There is no Attachment 8 listed in Section J of the RFP, nor is this document attached to the RFP. Given the impact on the pricing of this ODC, this seems like critical information. The CLIN table only provides a NTE amount for the Phase- In period and no estimates for the Base year and all options years . As stated “The Offeror shall not adjust the Government provided ceiling estimates. Will the Government provide the relevant documentation on Government-furnished housing? If this information is not provided, how are offerors instructed to complete the pricing for these ODC CLINs? | The Government has revised section L.8.5.l to remove the reference to attachment 8. | |||
| RFP Section M | RFP Section M, "FACTOR III - COST FACTOR": Based on the unique OCONUS locations, diversity of work scope within the PWS, and challenges of staffing in the CENTCOM region, can the Government confirm they will apply all 4 tenets of cost evaluation - completeness, reasonableness, realism and balance - when considering offeror bids? | The Government conforms that all four tenets of cost evaluation; completeness, reasonableness, realism, and balance will be applied. | |||
| General Princing Question | General Pricing Question: Will an offeror be considered non-compliant if they do not price in Kuwait and Qatar labor laws and identify them within their recruiting and retention section of Volume 2? | Offerors shall be in compliance with Kuwait and Qatar labor laws. | |||
| L.6.8.h | 234 | H | Will the government confirm the compensation plan is excluded from page count. | The Government confirms that the Compensation Plan is excluded from the page count. | |
| L.7 | 235 | 1 | Is it the government's intention that contractors will submit their CPARs as part of the proposal? | See the answer to the question on row 25. | |
| L.7 | 235 | 1 | If CPARs are to be submitted, how many should be included? | Se the answer to the question on row 25. | |
| L.3 | 74 | 6 | Will the government confirm only an unsanizited version of the cost volume(s) is required? | The Government confirms that an UNSANITIZED version of the Cost volumne is required. | |
| L.7 & M.3.6 | 235 & 222 | all PP instructions and eval | If Offerors are not required to provide the CPARs, how will the Government determine which CPARs to use for each contractor when presented with a number of CPARs listed in the reporting system? Specifically, how will Relevancy be determined when evaluating each CPAR? | See the answer to the question on row 25. | |
| M.3.6 | 222 | all PP eval | Will the government please confirm that a CPAR that is "Incomplete-Rated" will be evaluated? | Yes. | |
| M.3.6 | 222 | a) Recency | Will the Government please confirm that a CPAR with an assessment start date earlier than 5 years from solicitation release date will be evaluated as long as the assessment end date is within the 5 year period? | Yes. | |
| M.3.6 | 222 | b) Relevancy | Will the Government please describe how they will determine "Relevancy" since most CPARs do not contain the relevance evaluation criteria listed in Section M? For example, many/most CPARs do not list the PWS services provided, or OCONUS locations, or information on "equally qualified Program Managers", or simultaneous performance at multiple sites...even though these things may be provided/relevant in the reference. If it is not in the CPAR, how will the Government find out about these Relevancy criteria? | Se the answer to the question on row 25. | |
| M.3.6 | 222 | b) Relevancy | Will the Government please describe how they will determine Magnitude relevancy, since most CPARs do not discuss management 40 or more staff. Will this evaluation use the dollar value only? | see the answer to the question on row 25. | |
| The solicitation document is titled "Solicitation Amendment W91RUS24R0020-P00001.pdf." The SF 30 also states "Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract." Can the government clarify if this is a new solicitation altogether or an amendment to the solicitation that was due in January 2024? | The solicitation in January was canceled. .The Government confirms that amendment W91RUS24R0020-0001 is an amendment of solicitation W91RUS24R0020. Solicitation W91RUS24R0020 is a new solicitation. | ||||
| Can an offeror who did not bid as a prime on the prior solicitation, bid as a prime on this one? | Yes. | ||||
| L.1.6 - Volume III | The government states that past performance "Shall only be evaluated by the government using CPARs." What information would the government like the offeror to provide so that the government can access the CPARS? | see answer to the question on row 25. | |||
| L.1.6 - Volume III | The government states that past performance "Shall only be evaluated by the government using CPARs." How many past performances should the offeror provide? | see the answer to question on row 25. | |||
| L.1.6 - Volume III | The government states that past performance "Shall only be evaluated by the government using CPARs." Can the offeror use the past performance of a subcontractor? | The offeror can submit subcontractor past performance information using the same process as defined in the answer to the question on row 25. | |||
| L.8.5.a Volume IV | The government states, "Refer to Section M -Evaluation | ||||
| Factors for Award for further details on how this option will be evaluated." There is no Section M included in the solicitation Amendment. Can the government provide one? | The Government defines the evaluation criteria for FAR 52.217-8 in section M Factor III-Cost Factor page 265-266. | ||||
| L.8.5.j Volume IV | The government states "Attachment 08 of Section J sets forth the Government-furnished housing." No Attachmen 08 was included with the solicitation. Can the government provide it? | See answer to the question on row 30. | |||
| L.1 - Volume I | Can the government clarify which Volume I elements subcontractors need to provide? | All elements of Volume I are required. See Section L.5 Volumne I - General for the required elements. | |||
| L.1. Volume I | Are subcontractors required to demonstrate an adequate accounting system if there is no DCAA audit on file? | Offerors who have not had an Accounting System Review(s) by DCAA or DCMA may, at the offeror's expense, submit information from an Independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or other qualified independent third party, verifying that the offeror's accounting system complies with the requirements stated within the DCAA Contract Audit Manual (DCAAM) Chapter 5-202, Preaward Survey of a Prospective Contractor's Accounting System and Standard Form (SF) 1408, Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor's Accounting System.” Final determination on accounting system adequecy will be made by the Contracting Officer at the time of determining responsibility. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .