VAULT Support IDIQ 2nd Draft RFP Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 68 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FA701420R0008 RFI #2 - Answers to Questions
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
View the file
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
| AOR | Question/Recommendation | Document | Section | Question | Answer |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | General | Should references to Webex be replaced with Microsoft Teams? | Yes, oral presentations will occur via Microsoft Teams. Final version will reference Microsoft Teams instead of WebEx |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1 | Instructions refer to "Technical Scenario Solution and accompanying oral presentation slides" - can USG confirm that the slides present the "Technical Scenario Solution", and that these are not two separate documents. Can USG also confirm that the oral presentation slides are not meant to cover the PWS? | Technical Scenario Solution should be separate from presentation slides; though presentation slides may describe Technical Scenario Solution |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1 | Can USG detail how the "Vendor scenario solution data repository" will be accessed, and whether we are expected to also load data into the repository? Do we submit this as part of our technical approach? | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1 | Will the government share information about the scenario and data repository to ensure availability of tools, resources, etc.? | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.1.3 | Can USG confirm that activities under 3.5 Data Environment Development refer to the "Data Environment Architecture" as described in 3.1.3? It is not clear whether we are to propose one or two architectures or environments.3.1.3 describes the core function as "enable consumption of prepared datasets by the analytical and/or systems development communities", and 3.5 describes the core function as "enabling large scale analysis, exposure and exploitation of USAF data to analytic and systems development communities". The latter suggests that the environment contains data science tools and services. If these are the same data environment architecture, can USG clarify how development in 3.5 differs from development in 3.1.3? | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.2 | Can USG confirm that we are to detail our overall, PWS-wide approach to CI/CD using DevSecOps agile methodology in 3.2? As written 3.2 refers to CI/CD in the context of a "pipeline for Analytics", but other parts of the PWS refer to the CI/CD approach in 3.2 as an "Agile development philosophy". | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.2 | This section includes the requirement: "The contractor shall apply machine learning and artificial intelligence principles using open source or COTS frameworks in R, Python, or other language libraries supported by enterprise Data Platforms.”Can USG move the requirement from 3.2 to 3.4, such that approaches to ML/AI can be addressed in one integrated section? | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.3.1 | Can USG clarify exactly where the PWS and scenario solution, respectively, are to be addressed? 2.3.1 states: “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written scenario solution (oral presentation slides) and technical approach to the PWS tasks and scenario. Offerors written presentation should cover the proposed strategic approach, methodology, and understanding of the PWS tasks and scenario.”Based on the first sentence, it is not clear whether the technical approach to the PWS (15 page document) must also include the scenario solution. Based on the second sentence, it is not clear whether the scenario solution oral presentation (slides) must also address the PWS. | RFP Clarified to differentitate the submission between the PWS submission and scenario solution |
| PK | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.3.1 | It is not clear which evaluation criteria apply to the 15-page PWS response, the 90-minute presentation, or both. “The Government will evaluate the Offerors use of industry best practices as well as the Offerors proposed outcomes, challenges, assumptions, and alignment (if any) to DoD Enterprise Standards.”<< Does this apply to the Technical Approach (15-page document), Scenario Solution, or both?“The Government will evaluate the offers ability to demonstrate and defend its strategy and the strategy’s realism based on the data provided to support its outcomes and recommendation(s).“<< Does this apply to the Technical Approach (15-page document), Scenario Solution, or both?“Technical Capability will be evaluated in accordance with Table 3 based on the Offeror’s solution to the Government provided technical scenario. “<< This suggests that Table 3 does not apply to the Technical Approach (15-page document). | The technical submission consists of both the technical approach (15-page PWS response) along with the Scenario Solution. An overall ranking for the technical submission as a whole will be applied. Government will clarify this Factor to avoid confusion. |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 4.1 | “The Offeror shall complete and submit the IDIQ Pricing Sheet with fully burdened off-site rates”Is this referring to our site or the customer site? | Rates should be for the National Capital Region Area |
| CO | Question | IDIQ Pricing Worksheet | The Senior Data Architect and Data Engineer LCATs allow a Master’s degree to replace 4 years of experience. Will the government also permit 4 additional years of experience (with a Bachelor’s degree) to replace the Graduate degree requirement for the Data Science Consultant and Senior Data Scientist LCATs? | No | |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1, Table 2 | Please confirm that when the RFP mentions “volumes”, those correlate to Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3. Table 2 does not have a column labeled “Volumes”. | Referenced that Steps and Volumes are the same when considering Table 2 |
| PK/CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | Para 4.8 | Prime vendors on VAULT shall perform at least 50% of the work on all task orders. No exceptions. Recommended verbiage: “Prime vendors on VAULT shall perform at least 50% of the work over the life time of the contract.”Justification: If the Prime has exceptional team members, many who are small businesses, who qualify to completely fulfill a task order, why does the government want to limit the opportunities for those team members by requiring the Prime to perform at least 50% of the task order work. | Removed 50% requirement |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | Para 2.2 | Is the expectation still 12 Calendar days to deliver the Technical Scenario solution? | Yes |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | Para of 3.1.1 Step 3 | The technical submission states that the submission format will be a presentation. However, in the final untitled, but likely amplifying information column, it mentions a “Data Repository” as an acceptable format for the submission. Our question concerns the data repository: Is it expected that the solution presented will require supporting executable application code and/or git repository for the government to view, verify or execute? Will this require an extant application running in a Government or Offeror environment? | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| PK | Question | Other | Does the government have the anticipated release date of the Final RFP | As soon as we receive clearance to issue the soliciation | |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1 | Instructions refer to "Technical Scenario Solution and accompanying oral presentation slides" - can USG confirm that the slides present the "Technical Scenario Solution", and that these are not two separate documents. Can USG also confirm that the oral presentation slides are not meant to cover the PWS? | There is a requirement for a written response to the technical scenario solution as well as a written response to the overarching PWS tasks and oral presentation slides. Oral presentation slides should address the solution for the Technical Scenario and not the overarching PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1 | Can USG detail how the "Vendor scenario solution data repository" will be accessed, and whether we are expected to also load data into the repository? Do we submit this as part of our technical approach? | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1 | Will the government share information about the scenario and data repository to ensure availability of tools, resources, etc.? | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.1.3 | Can USG confirm that activities under 3.5 Data Environment Development refer to the "Data Environment Architecture" as described in 3.1.3? It is not clear whether we are to propose one or two architectures or environments. | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.1.3 describes the core function as "enable consumption of prepared datasets by the analytical and/or systems development communities", and 3.5 describes the core function as "enabling large scale analysis, exposure and exploitation of USAF data to analytic and systems development communities". The latter suggests that the environment contains data science tools and services. If these are the same data environment architecture, can USG clarify how development in 3.5 differs from development in 3.1.3? | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. | |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.2 | Can USG confirm that we are to detail our overall, PWS-wide approach to CI/CD using DevSecOps agile methodology in 3.2? As written 3.2 refers to CI/CD in the context of a "pipeline for Analytics", but other parts of the PWS refer to the CI/CD approach in 3.2 as an "Agile development philosophy". | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.2 | This section includes the requirement: "The contractor shall apply machine learning and artificial intelligence principles using open source or COTS frameworks in R, Python, or other language libraries supported by enterprise Data Platforms." Can USG move the requirement from 3.2 to 3.4, such that approaches to ML/AI can be addressed in one integrated section? | Paragraph 3 removed to reduce confusion as these are the PWS tasks. |
| CO | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.3.1 | Can USG clarify exactly where the PWS and scenario solution, respectively, are to be addressed? 2.3.1 states: “The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written scenario solution (oral presentation slides) and technical approach to the PWS tasks and scenario. Offerors written presentation should cover the proposed strategic approach, methodology, and understanding of the PWS tasks and scenario.” Based on the first sentence, it is not clear whether the technical approach to the PWS (15 page document) must also include the scenario solution. Based on the second sentence, it is not clear whether the scenario solution oral presentation (slides) must also address the PWS. | Language added to the RFP to clarify where each portion of the technical proposal is to be addressed |
| PK | Recommendation | Scope and Ordering Guide | Pg 11-12 | The Government states: “Awarded VAULT vendors are only allowed to declare a “no bid” two (2) consecutive times OR no more than three (3) times annually (per ordering period year.” However, under the same document Section 9 (page 31) the Government describes various circumstances where operations under the VAULT IDIQ may cause an OCI for existing or future work. Request the Government update this language to not penalize offerors in the case of no-bid due OCI. Suggest updated language: “Awarded VAULT vendors are only allowed to declare a “no bid” two (2) consecutive times OR no more than three (3) times annually (per ordering period year, except where vendors have provided documented materials detailing current or future OCI that limited a task order bid.” | The Government will take this into consideration |
| PK | Recommendation | Scope and Ordering Guide | Pg 11-12 | The Government states: “Awarded VAULT vendors that provide poor performance will be off ramped (removed) as a VAULT IDIQ vendor and will no longer be able to propose on future task order request.” The Government states poor performance as “missing milestones and deadlines, not performing IAW vendor’s proposal, misconduct of employees, and poor quality of deliverables”. Suggest the Government update the language to provide a measurable metric for poor performance. Suggest updated language: “Awarded VAULT vendors are only allowed to declare a “no bid” two (2) consecutive times OR no more than three (3) times annually (per ordering period year, except where vendors have provided documented materials detailing current or future OCI that limited a task order bid. Poor performance includes, a CPAR rating in technical or quality under satisfactory or a cure notice without an acceptable remediation in place in 60 days under any given TO.” | The Government will take this into consideration |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | Pg 14 | Can the Government please clarify if a Cost Narrative should be submitted under Step 2 with no page limit and include this artifact in the instructions section? | Pricing IDIQ worksheet is all that is requested |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 15 | The Document states, “Contractors should avoid proposing proprietary solution”. Can the Government please specific its definition of a proprietary solution? Is the definition related to vendor specific tools/tech or does it also include the collective process, organization, management and frameworks specific to VAULT? | The Government declines to respond at this time. |
| PK | Recommendation | Scope and Ordering Guide | 15 | The Document states: “Prime vendors on VAULT shall perform at least 50% of the work on all task orders.” There are cases where a subcontractor partner may specialize or provide the best value majority solution for a TO. Would the Government consider re-defining this requirement to “Prime vendors on VAULT shall perform at least 50% of the work across all task orders?” | 50% requirement has been removed. |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | Pg 11-12 | The Government states: “Awarded VAULT vendors are only allowed to receive two (2) marginal technical proposal ratings during the five (5) year ordering period.” Can the Government please provide the evaluation scale and definitions that will be used on all future VAULT TOs? | The Government will utilize the same Table 3 for Task Orders that is contained within the Evaulation Criteria for the base RFP. Ordering guide will be updated to also include this table to ensure consistency. |
| PK | Question | Other | Does the Government anticipate setting-aside any prime awards to SB interests? | No | |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.4 | Will all TOPRs be preceded by an RFI? If not, will AFDW/PKS publish a forecast of opportunities? This will help Vendors prepare resulting in responses that are easier to evaluate. | No, due to the expedited ordering procedures that will be included with the base contract an RFI will not always be an option for all task orders. The Government will ensure that as much notice as possible is given for a particular requirement prior to the TOPR due date |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.6 | Will all Task Order proposal submissions be electronic? If so, via e-mail or a portal? | Task order submission criteria will be detailed in the Task Order Proposal Request. It is anticipated that all future task orders be submitted via e-mail to AFDW/PKS |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.6 | Will resumes be required with Task Order proposals? If, so actual or representative? | Task order request for proposals will detail the requirements for resumes |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.6 | For Task Order Proposal oral presentation requests, will presentation slides be required on the Task Order proposal response due date or at a later time? | Task order deadlines will be detailed in the Task Order Proposal Request. It is anticipated that oral presentation slides will be due on the Task Order Proposal Response due date |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.6 | Can you elaborate more on the orals process? Such as: |
a. Will this be in person or virtual?
b. Will the evaluators require the slides for review prior to the oral presentation?
c. How long after submission will Orals sessions be scheduled?
d. If session is not virtual, what equipment must the vendor bring?
e. How many vendor staff can attend?
f. Will key personnel be required to present the orals slides or can anyone present?
Can other media forms be used for orals such as demos, videos, etc?
a. The oral process will be virtual via Microsoft Teams
b. The slides are due prior to the oral presentation in accordance with the Table in the Instruction to Offerors
c. Please see the Instruction to Offerors for timeline for oral presentation
d. Please see a above
e. At a minimum, key personnel and those authoried to enter into limited exchanges shall attend. There is no specific maximum number of attending staff but attendee's should be able to contribute to the presentation in a value-added manner.
f. Key personnel should be included in the oral presentation.
g. Oral presentations must utilize PowerPoint or PDF per the instructions to offerors. PowerPoint or PDF should not have documents/videos embedded into them.
CO Question Scope and Ordering Guide 4.6 Item 9 states: Each vendor must also provide an Excel Spreadsheet with each employee’s name and security clearance that will be working each individual task order with its proposal (if applicable). Once awarded clearance verification will be required.
Does this requirement mean literally every person who will be working on the task order must be named?
| The Government declines to respond at this time. | ||||
| PK/CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.7 | The requirement to “… include travel, materials, tools, licenses, etc….” seems to open the door for a wide variety of assumptions resulting in a wide range of prices. The BOA requires an IGE that should outline those items. |
a. Would the government consider requiring every TOR supply a plug number for non-labor costs?
Will all work be performed at a Government facility?
| The Government declines to respond at this time. | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.8 | Using the IGE as a basis, adding “realism” to the price evaluation could help limit vendors from “buying” the work in order to build past performance. |
Will the Government consider adding “realism” to the price evaluation?
| The Government will included realism to the price evaluation critera where appropriate | ||||
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2.3 | 1. Attch 1 ITO; |
Attch 2 Evaluation 2.2.3 Step 3;
2.3.1 Technical includes Approach and Scenario Solution 5;
3 Attch 1 states in 2.2.3.1 “Technical proposal submission will include technical approach to PWS, scenario solution, and oral presentation slides for your scenario solution…” Attch 2 states that the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written scenario solution (oral presentation slides) and technical approach to the PWS tasks and scenario.
Is a written technical approach to the scenario (as indicated in Attch 2) – distinct from the oral presentation slides – required as part of Step 3?
| Yes, written response toa the technical sceanrio solution should be separate from the presentation slides | |||||
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 4.3 | Should Offeror’s 15-page approach and methodology to complete the tasks of the PWS be written to apply to the given technical scenario, or should it be a general approach to the tasks of the PWS? | Both, Table 2 has been clarified that there is a submission for the general approach to the tasks of the PWS as well as a written submission for the Technical Scenario Solution |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.3 | Attch 1 Section 4.3.1 states “Offerors have up to 90 minutes to explain its findings and recommendations,” and Section 2.3 states “The Offeror shall present its slides via Microsoft Teams.” In addition, Attch 2 states, “The oral presentation is not an opportunity for the Offeror to change its proposal.” |
If the Offeror develops a demonstration for the scenario solution and indicates such in the PowerPoint slides (and provides screen shots of the demonstration in the PPT slides), can the Offeror present the live demonstration during orals and remain compliant with the solicitation instructions?
| Oral presentation should contain information that is only presented in the PowerPoint Slides | ||||
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2.1 | Prime contractors that have a Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) negotiated Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan (CSBSP) and therefore participate in the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (Test Program) use their comprehensive subcontracting plans, in lieu of individual subcontracting plans, when performing any DoD contract or subcontract that requires a subcontracting plan, per 219.702-70. |
Will the government add clause 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) for those contractors holding a negotiated Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan?”
| The Government will included language for those offerors that have a Comprehensive Small Subcontracting Plan | ||||
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2.1 | DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans have pre-approved and negotiated goals with DCMA. As a result, these goals may be different than the DoD published subcontracting goals or the RFP goals. |
Will the government accept that a proposing prime contractor with a CSBSP can submit a Small Business Commitment Document that meets the RFP goals and which they intend to implement, while understanding that their CSBSP has negotiated different goals, and the CSBSP holder will not be penalized on the basis of the negotiated CSBSP goals?
| The Government will included language for those offerors that have a Comprehensive Small Subcontracting Plan | ||||
| PK | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.2.3 | Section 2.2.3, the Government states they will evaluate the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) to determine fairness and reasonableness. |
Per FAR 52.222-46, please confirm it is the Government’s intent to evaluate the PECP to also determine realism to ensure offerors do not propose labor rates below a realistic range.
| Government will clarify that we also intend to evaluate realism | ||||
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | Table 2 | Step 3 indicates a “Vendor scenario solution data repository” should be submitted. |
a. What is required to be submitted for the “Vendor solution data repository”
b. How will this information be evaluated?
| Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released | ||||
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.2.2 | Attch 1 para 3.2.2 references “both email and hard copy proposals.” All other instructions reference only email submittal. |
Please confirm that the submission method for all Steps is electronic.
| Hard copy reference will be removed. All submissions to the RFP will be electronic. | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.8 | Section 4.8 of the Scope & Ordering Guide provides a definition for an NTSB which is different from the definition of an NTSB in the Attch 1 paragraph 4.2.3, page 11. In addition, no definition is provided in Attch 1, 2.2.2.3, page 4. |
Can the government clarify and provide the correct definition for an NTSB?
| The Government will correct all discrepencies regarding the definition of NTSB. The Definition of a NTSB for this contract and all resulting orders will be "Nontraditional Small Business (NTSB) Contractor” means A small business entity that is not currently performing and has not performed any contract or subcontract for DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1502 and the regulations implementing such section, for at least the 1-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement (10 U.S.C. 2302(9))" | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 8.10.1 | Designating this as a Professional Services Advisory and Assistance Contract could raise Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) or the appearance of OCI issues for other work from VAULT government users and could limit competition by eliminating bids from VAULT vendors. |
Why is this designated as a professional Services Advisory and Assistance Contract?
| The Government has determined that the services required under this contract are defined as professional services in accordance with FAR definition. | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.8 | In this section it states, “Prime vendors on VAULT shall perform at least 50% of the work on all task orders. No exceptions.” This indicates the prime vendor must perform 50% of the work on each and every task order. |
To provide VAULT primes more flexibility in leveraging teammates based on the specific content of respective tasks orders as well as the specific capabilities and strengths of the prime’s teammates, will the government consider:
a. Changing this requirement to be measured at the ID/IQ level of the contract, vice the task order level
Also, can the government confirm that the 50% Prime participation requirement is the correct value Prime participation will be measured at?
| The 50% measurement has been removed from this acquisition. | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.8 | This section applies to each task order. It states that each task order proposal will be evaluated against the SB utilization plan and “any proposal below the minimum will be deemed unacceptable...” As written this indicates SB utilization is measured at the task order level. |
However, the Performance Objective Table in section 5.1 on page 17 indicates these are measured at the ID/IQ level.
Please confirm this requirement is measured at the ID/IQ level.
| The section addresses the small business utilization plan for each TOPR if it's required as part of the evaluation critera for the specific TO. Overall participation for small business will be measured as the IDIQ level. | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 9 | This section references the Air Force Strategic Transformation support contract. |
Can the government confirm that this should state VAULT contract?
| This is an error and will be changed from Strategic Transformation Support Contract to VAULT | |||||
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2 | For planning purposes will the Government please provide the due dates in Table 1, Proposal Timeline, to include the proposal step submissions and the proposal notifications to the Offerors that are not currently specified for the dates due? | The final version of the RFP will have updated due dates based off of calendar dates (e.g. 12 calendar days after notification of passing prior step). Notifications will have specific due dates/times. |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1 | In order to provide the Government with the information required to validate our Pricing/Professional Employee Compensation (PECP), will the Government please extend the page limit for the PECP to 20 pages? | The Government will take this into consideration |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 3.1.1 | The Vendor Scenario Solution Data Repository does not appear in other sections of Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerorsor 2. Please confirm that the Vendor Scenario Solution Data Repository is an artifact the offeror will submit, and if so, what is the desired format? | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 4.1 | In addition to the supporting price data provided in the Offeror's PECP, what other reference data will the Government apply in its analysis of the Offeror's proposed rates to determine if the rates are fair and reasonable and demonstrate cost realism for the Washington, DC area? | The Government will not disclosue evaluation methodology |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 4.1 | Attachment 1 - Instruction to OfferorsInstructions to Offerors, Section 4.1, page 10 states that the PECP requirement applies to first tier subcontractors. Are subcontractors able to submit their PECP directly to the Government via sealed package? | PECPs for subcontractors will not be required |
| PK | Questions | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 4.2.2 | The RFP states that the Offeror must include enforceable agreements with Small Business and NTSBs as part of the Small Business Commitment Document submission. Will teaming agreements or letters of commitment with small business subcontractors be sufficient to satisfy this requirement? | Yes |
| CO | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.3.1 | Please confirm that the 15 page written technical approach should only address the PWS tasks (Scope and Ordering Guide Sections 3.0 - 3.5.2) and the 15 page written technical approach should NOT address any aspect of the scenario solution or the Scope and Ordering guide Sections 6.0 (Deliverables) and 8.0 (General Information). | RFP Clarified to differentitate the submission between the PWS submission and scenario solution |
| PK | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 3.0, 3.2, and 6.1 | How will the IDIQ Pricing Sheet be included within the evaluation criteria? (i.e. will it be included in Factor 1 and/or part of Factor 3?) | The IDIQ Pricing sheet will be evaluted in step 2 per paragraph 2.2.2 of Attachment 2 |
| CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 3.2.2 | Would the Government please clarify if vendors will be expected to install and maintain a vendor-acquired issue management system or utilize an existing issue management capability provided by the Government? If vendor-acquired, will the Government provide the accredited infrastructure/environment to install the system or will the contractor be expected to acquire and accredit the infrastructure/environment? | The Government declines to respond at this time. |
| PK | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | Attachment 2, Section 1, Page 1 | "In the event of a tie, price will be evaluated to determine which vendor receives an award." |
| Please clarify the basis for this tie breaking evaluation. Is it lowest price, best value, or most reasonable? Further, will this "tie" evaluation only be used when selecting the compliant, lowest rated technical proposal of the total number that will be awarded (e.g., up to 5)? | Language added to the RFP to clarify this is a trade off contract. Step 3 (technical submission) is more important than price and the Government reserves to award up to 5 contracts that are determined to be the best value to the Government | ||||
| CO | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | Attachment 2, Section 2.3.1, Page 3 | "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written scenario solution (oral presentation slides) and technical approach to the PWS tasks and scenario." |
| Can the government confirm if written scenario solution is oral presentation slides only? | RFP Clarified to differentitate the submission between the PWS submission and scenario solution | ||||
| PK | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | Attachment 2, Section 2.3.1, Page 3 | "Offerors shall provide an oral presentation provided by the key personnel that developed the solution and the program manager which shall be employed on any contract awarded." |
| Can the government clarify if there will be a key personnel requirement for the IDIQ or if they are only required for oral presentation? | There is a key personnel requirement at the task order level | ||||
| PK | Recommendation | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | ITO, Para 2.1.1, Page 1 | “Questions related to the RFP are due to the POCs by NLT 0900 AM ET three (3) days after RFP release.” |
| We recommend that the due day be changed to three (3) business days after RFP release to allow for adequate review and submission of questions. | The Government will take this into consideration | |||||
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | ITO, Para 2.3.3, Page 6 | This paragraph is missing in the ITO document. There is a paragraph 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 | The Government will correct this error | |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | ITO, Para 2.3.6, Page 6 | "Format for Presentations. Offerors shall provide its presentation in Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) file." |
| Are embedded audio and/or videos permitted in the PowerPoint file? | No, no embedded audo/video/documents are permitted in the oral presentation | ||||
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | ITO, Para 3.1.1 Table 2, Page 8 | Step 3 requires three items (1) Technical Approach for PWS, (2) Scenario Solution and (3) Oral Presentation Slides. The Presentation charts shall be the technical scenario solution only. Column 4 of the table also specifies the requirement for a “Vendor scenario solution data repository”. |
| Please clarify the how the scenario data repository is to be submitted for the Government’s access. | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | Scope & Ordering Guide, Para 4.3, Page 11 | "All task order request over $25M shall be made through and approved by SAF/CO prior to submission to AFDW/PKS for solicitation and award. See the approval matrix (Table 1) below" |
| Is it correct that task order requests below $25M can be approved, solicited and awarded at MAJCOM and base level across the Air Force? | All task order under $25M have to be approved by the SAF/CO Contracting Officer Representative | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | Scope & Ordering Guide, Para 4.3, Page 11 | This paragraph states that awarded VAULT vendors are only allowed to declare a “no bid” two (2) consecutive times OR no more than three (3) times annually (per ordering period year). |
| Will there be an exception process in the event there is an OCI issue that precludes bidding on a task order? | The Government will consider taking OCI into consideration for off-ramping language | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | Scope & Ordering Guide, Para 4.6, Page 13 | "AFDW/PKS provides the applicable Vendors with TOPR package. The Contracting office will schedule the AMA" |
| Does the government plan to do AMA for expedited proposal (3 calendar days)? | Due to the expedited process AMA are not alway possible. | |||||
| PK/CO | Question | Other | N/A | Does the government currently have any informaiton related to proposed Task Orders and when they might be released? | No | |
| PK | Question | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2 | During the Advisory Multi-Step process, some Offerors were given a “Viable” and some a “non-Viable” rating. The Government stated at that time that any Offeror that participated in the process, regardless of the rating they received could submit a bid for VAULT. In Step 2 how will the Government use the rating from the AMS to give those companies found “Viable” better scores than those found “non-Viable”? To decrease risk in execution to the Government, we respectfully request that this difference in scoring be provided significant consideration as part of the Step 1 Process. If companies were found “non-Viable” the risk to the Government for these companies to be approved for Step 2 seem very high in execution. | Per FAR 15.202 all respondents that, notwithstanding the advice provided by the Government in response to their submissions, may participate in the resultant acquisition. | |
| CO | Question | IDIQ Pricing Worksheet | LCAT | We respectfully request the Government include a series of Labor Categories for Business Analyst, defined as Level 1 (Education: Bachelor’s degree; Experience: 0-2 years); Level 2 (Education: Bachelor’s degree; Experience 2-5 years); and Level 3 (Education: Bachelor’s degree; Experience: 6+ years). | Request denied | |
| PK/CO | Recommendation | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 1 | Data Scientists are some of the most difficult resources to find in sufficient number according to the demand, and more so in some areas of the country than others. To make Price the tie breaker, drives this contract, even if this is not the intent, to a LPTA type vehicle – even if the rest of the evaluation is pass/fail or best value. For the ultimate factor to be price, this will negatively impact the Government receiving the best personnel, most experienced and best suited to help solve mission critical challenges. We respectfully request the Government not use Price as a tie breaker. | Technical factor is more important than price. The Government will awarded based off of proposals that represent the best value to the Government | |
| PK/CO | Recommendation | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 1 | 4 Attachment 2, 1.0 Basis for Contract Award, paragraph 2, page 1 “In the event of a tie, price will be evaluated to determine which vendor receives an award” Data Scientists are some of the most difficult resources to find in sufficient number according to the demand, and more so in some areas of the country than others. To make Price the tie breaker, drives this contract, even if this is not the intent, to a LPTA type vehicle – even if the rest of the evaluation is pass/fail or best value. For the ultimate factor to be price, this will negatively impact the Government receiving the best personnel, most experienced and best suited to help solve mission critical challenges. |
We respectfully request that the Government use the Offeror’s approach and technical solution to the Scenario as the tie breaker.
| Technical factor is more important than price. The Government will awarded based off of proposals that represent the best value to the Government | ||||
| PK | Recommendation | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 1 | 5 Attachment 2, 1.0 Basis for Contract Award, paragraph 2, page 1 |
Attachment 2, 4.0 Award, Section 4.1, page 4 “The evaluation criteria is three (3) factors. FACTOR 1: Price. FACTOR 2: Small Business Commitment Document. FACTOR 3: Technical Approach.”
“4.1 Technical is more important than price” We respectfully request that price be the third factor and Technical be the first factor. If it is the Government’s intent to bring the best data scientists, the best solutions, and the commercial best practices to the Air Force business and mission needs, the focus on price is the antithesis of the afore mentioned intent. Focusing on Technical ability and then small business commitment and the ability to bring innovation is better served having technology first, small business second and price third. We respectfully request the Government incorporate the following language to clarify rank ordering of importance of evaluation factors: Technical is more important than small business commitment plan (SBCP); SBCP is more important than Price plus Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP); together, Technical plus SBCP is significantly more important than Price plus PECP.
| The numbering of the factors does not correlate with the factors importance. The Draft RFP stated that technical is more important the price. The Government will consider expanding this language for clarification. | ||||
| PK | Recommendation | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2.2.1 | 6 Attachment 2, Step 2, 2.2.2 Sub-Factor One IDIQ Pricing Work sheet, page 2 |
Attachment 1, 2.2.2.1, IDIQ Pricing Sheet, page 4
Attachment 1, 2.2.2.1, IDIQ Pricing Sheet, page 4
Attachment 1, 2.2.2.4, page 4 “..if the price for one or more labor category ceiling rates are determined not fair and reasonable, the Offer shall be eliminated from the competitive range and their proposal will not be further evaluated”
“Note: Rates Proposed in the IDIQ pricing sheet will be ceiling rates”
“Offerors will be notified via email if they are retained within the competitive range after the Government evaluates step two submissions. Offerors that are retained within the competitive range shall submit step three required documentation by the date specified in table 1.”
The government has not specified the geographical location of the pricing for evaluation in this section for ceiling rates. Please clarify the location for which rates should reflect.
Given that there are much higher pay rates in the State of California, OCONUS and several other locations other than the NCR, making the proposed labor rates the ceiling rates for all locations will increase risk to the Government for finding the best personnel who meet the education and years of experience requirements in the IDIQ Labor categories. This will increase risk to the Government in getting the best personnel for requirements.
We respectfully request that the Government request pricing for the NCR region for all labor categories with the expressed understanding that geographic adjustments may be necessary outside of the NCR.
| Ceiling rates removed. Pricing will be used for evaluation as well as required for all future task orders | |||||
| PK | Recommendation | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.2.2 | We respectfully request that the Government allow escalation of rates above normally expected rates for specific labor categories given the scarcity of some of these personnel and the exceedingly competitive nature of hiring, particularly at higher security clearance levels. | Ceiling rates removed. Pricing will be used for evaluation as well as required for all future task orders |
| PK | Recommendation | Attachement 2 - Evaluation of Offerors | 2.2.2 | 8 Attachment 2, Step 2, 2.2.2 Sub-Factor One IDIQ Pricing Work sheet |
Attachment 1, 2.2.2: Step 2 (Acceptable/Unacceptable), page 4
Attachment 1, 2.2.2.1 IDIQ Pricing Sheet, page 4
Attachment 1, 2.2.2.4, page 4 ..if the price for one or more labor category ceiling rates are determined not fair and reasonable, the Offer shall be eliminated from the competitive range and their proposal will not be further evaluated”
“Note: Rates Proposed in the IDIQ pricing sheet will be ceiling rates”
“Offerors will be notified via email if they are retained within the competitive range after the Government evaluates step two submissions. Offerors that are retained within the competitive range shall submit step three required documentation by the specified date…” This contract allows for personnel from SECRET to TS/SCI (Referenced in PWS sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5). The Labor categories refer to SECRET and the cost of personnel in the same labor categories increase from SECRET to TS, and TS to TS/SCI. Having the rates bid as ceiling rates does not take these variances into consideration.
We respectfully recommend that the Government use multi-tiered rate cards
For the vehicle to consider all security levels and locations, the Government would need to require Industry to price the most expensive location anticipated for the contract at a TS/SCI level for all labor categories and use those as the ceiling rates. Otherwise the risk to the Government of having rates that are so low that it will be impossible to fill needed personnel at higher security levels in more expensive locations will be very high.
The other option for the Government is to request pricing at the Secret level in the NCR and allow LCAT rate escalation to be determined at the Task Order level for higher clearances and more expensive areas.
| Ceiling rates removed. Pricing will be used for evaluation as well as required for all future task orders | |||||
| PK | Recommendation | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2.1.4 | We respectfully request that the Government track subcontracting goals at the vehicle level similar to ALLIANT and other large IDIQ vehicles. | The Government will take this into consideration |
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | Table 2 | Please clarify “Reps and Certs (written)” as this requirement is not described on Page 3, 2.2.1, Step 1. | Removed entry from table. This requirement is covered in paragraph 2.1.2 and the Government will confirm that each offeror that submits a response complies with paragraph 2.1.2 |
| CO | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | Table 2 | Please clarify the format required for the Vendor Scenario Solution data repository submission. | Instructions will be provided when the Technical Scenario is released |
| CO | Recommendation | IDIQ Pricing Worksheet | We respectfully request the Government allow other degree areas of study such as Political Science, Math, Economics, and other degrees having very strong requirements for analytics and statistics. | The Government declines to respond at this time. | |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.3 | 13 Scope and Ordering Guide, 4.3 “Who can use this IDIQ”, page 11 of 33 Table 1 Approval Matrix Please clarify that any organization down to the Field level can access this vehicle and the Approval Matrix in Table 1 is not a list of the only organizations able to use the vehicle, simply the approvals to use the vehicle. This request is made because the section does not disclose who can use the vehicle, only the approval chain used for TOPR requests over $25M. | This will be a centralized contract with all orders being placed by AFDW/PK. This part of the ordering guide is utilized for internal Government use. |
| PK | Recommendation | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.2 | Given that there is no “on ramping” for the contract vehicle, we respectfully request that the Contracting Officer not specify a number of Marginal technical ratings, and the performance of the selected primes in responding to TOPRs be left to the Contracting Officers discretion. | The Government will incorporate on-ramping language |
| PK/CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.6 | We respectfully request that the Government includes language that allows for NTSB to be allowed to receive security clearances and that bidding them as key personnel without clearances will not result in the Offeror receiving a lower evaluation rating. | Clearances will be required at the start of performance |
| PK/CO | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.6 | 16 Scope and Ordering Guide, 4.6, #9, page 14 of 33 We respectfully request that the Government includes language that allows for personnel with only Commercial Experience who bring Commercial Best Practices to the Government, to be allowed to receive security clearance and that bidding them as key personnel without clearances will not result in the Offeror receiving a lower evaluation rating. | Clearances will be required at the start of performance |
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 4.8 | 17 Scope and Ordering Guide, 4.8 “How will each task order be evaluated”, page 15 of 33 “Prime vendors on VAULT shall perform at least 50% of the work on all task orders. No exceptions.” To bring more SB, and some small businesses (still small in many NAICS codes but not <$16.5M average over 5 years, as required in this NAICS code), we respectfully request that primes be allowed to perform less than 50% of the work. |
This is particularly pertinent and important to providing Data Science solutions.
Often innovative small businesses or medium (smalls not considered SB under the VAULT NAICS code) have proven solutions that bring significant value to the Government. When the prime MUST perform “at least 50% of the work” this decreases Offerors’ ability to bring these solutions to the Government with low risk, because the individuals who have performed this work elsewhere successfully will not be able to perform the work on VAULT TOPRs due to the percentage of work required by the prime. This can inadvertently stymie innovation for VAULT. We respectfully request that Offerors be required to perform a minimum of 25% of the work.
| The 50% requirement has been removed from this acquisition strategy. | ||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 8.9.3 | This paragraph alludes to OCONUS Travel but on cover it reads: |
“PENTAGON, WASHINGTON DC
AND
VARIOUS CONUS LOCATIONS”
Please clarify locations anticipated for TOPR support on VAULT.
| Final documentation will clarify locations. Specific locations will be stated at the Task Order level | |||||
| PK | Question | Scope and Ordering Guide | 9 | We respectfully request that the Government replace the wording with “VAULT.” | Government will make corrections |
| PK | Recommendation | Scope and Ordering Guide | 9 | Due to this possibility, and that Offerors will not know if any of their subcontractors may be performing work on a task with another Offeror that has an OCI, we respectfully request that the Government require exclusive teaming. |
Otherwise the Government will have to track which subcontractors are performing work that is considered OCI on which tasks under various prime Offerors. Since Offerors do not know the composition of competitors’ teams, it will be impossible for individual primes to know for certain that there is no OCI within the program unless exclusive teaming is enforced.
We respectfully request that the one exception to exclusive teaming be related to Hardware and Software vendors and their associated corporate products and services.
| The Government will take this into consideration | |||||
| PK | Question | Attachment 1 - Instruction to Offerors | 2.2.2.2 | Attachment 5 is referred to in Attachment 1, Section 2.2.2.2, page 4. Since Industry did not receive Attachment 5 please clarify the instructions that refer to Attachment 5/PECP. | Removed PECP as an attachment. Offerors may submit the plan in their own format but offerors are cautioned to include all of the required supporting information stated within FAR 22.11 |
| CO | Question | Other | 3.1.3 | Is the technical environment to be developed new or does the government anticipate soliciting services to take responsibility for development of one of the existing environments? | The Government declines to respond at this time. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .