A02 - Solicitation Phase 2_QA 20170602.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T-15-R-0008
About this file
This document provides a presolicitation notice for the Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground's Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services multiple-award IDIQ contract. The RS3 contract will provide knowledge-based professional engineering support services for C4ISR-related requirements to support programs across ACC-APG and other DoD agencies. Services will include engineering, RDT&E, logistics, acquisition, strategic planning, and education and training support. The anticipated contract ceiling is $37.4 billion over a ten-year ordering period including one five-year option. The period of performance is at the task order level and may be worldwide. Competition will be full and open to all responsible sources. The anticipated award date is July 29, 2015, with responses due upon release of the solicitation in late March 2015. The point of contact is provided for any questions regarding this presolicitation notice.
A02 - Solicitation Phase 2_QA 20170602.xlsx
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
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
| # | Question | Answer/Response |
| 1 | Is the Government expecting offerors to update and return the excel file, as the cost narrative (pdf file) did not show the calculation of the labor rates? | Thank you for your inquiry. As per the discussion letter, Offeror's are only required to provide the portions of their proposal which are required to be updated due to ENs, as well as a signed copy of the SF 30 for Solicitation Amendment 0010, which provides offeror acknowledgement of Solicitation and Amendments 0001 through 0010. Offerors are also required to affirmatively update past performance events requested pursuant to paragraph L.15.3.2 of the solicitation. Additionally, the discussion later states, "Offerors are reminded that if one volume is revised, then the offeror is responsible to ensure consistency with its other volumes and make revisions to other volumes as is necessary." When submitting revisions, in accordance with the discussion letter please make sure to include the page(s) from the original proposal, with changes tracked, so that the Government can ensure that the offeror has not exceeded the page limits in the solicitation. Last, please make sure to follow all instructions in the discussion letter. |
| 2 | The last amendment tracked is amendment 6 where the validity of the proposal was updated to 31 October 2017. Can you let me know if we did not receive amendments 8 and 9 (Amendment 7 was specifically skipped). | Thank you for your inquiry. Amendments 8 and 9 were provided on May 18, 2017. Amendment 0007 was administratively cancelled and was not used. Amendment 10 was issued with discussion letters. |
| 3 | Our assumption is that the Amendment 0010 SF 30 Form is to be returned with our revised proposal NLT 0800 June 15, 2017. Is our assumption correct? | Yes |
| 4 | I assume when we answer an EN and that involves a changed document (cost proposal, SB plan) those are the only documents we are to submit? Anything with changes? Or....does the government wish us to respond with all required documents even if none of those change? | Please see answer to question #1. |
| 5 | I assume that we'll submit another SF 33 that will acknowledge all amendments received as well as the new validity period? | Thank you for your inquiry. Offerors have already received Amendment 0010. IAW L.15.1.2, by signing and submitting the signed SF 30 form for Solicitation Amendment 0010, the offeror acknowledges the Solicitation and Amendment 0001 through 0010 (with the exception of Amendment 0007, which was administratively canceled), and affirms the entire propsoal will remain valid through October 31, 2018. An SF 33 is not required with this submission. |
| 6 | We went on FBO to download the Attachments and there were only "links" that did not connect to a server. Do you have a way for us to download the attachments we need to review to complete the ENs. | Attachment 0001 (cost) and 0002 (Sample Small Business Participation Report) were provided on May 25, 2017. |
| 7 | In regards to the solicitation amendment 10 for RS3, we noticed that there were updated section K. Do we need to update our section K Reps & Certs based on the updated clauses contained within this section? | Yes, any updates to the clauses shall be addressed or in accordance with FAR 52.201-8 "if the provision at 52.204-7 is not included in this solicitation, and the offeror is currently registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), and has completed the Representations and Certifications section of SAM electronically, the offeror may choose to use paragraph (d) of this provision instead of completing the corresponding individual respresentations and certifications in the solicitation." |
| 8 | I have received the two attachments and we will work to correct the necessary information. I have signed addendum, and I have authorized our proposals validity until October 31, 2017. I have attached the electronic version, was not sure if still needed to submit two copies? Could you please advise? | Thank you for your inquiry. Proposal validity shall be through October 31, 2018. One electronic signed copy will be accepted. This will be noted in future amendments released. |
| 9 | Per the discussion and evaluation notice it appears that we are to submit the entire proposal again with changes either highlighted and/or tracked (This would include all volumes) Is this correct or are we only to submit the volumes that have changes? | Please see the answer to question #1. |
| 10 | Based on the letter, it appears that Volume II is the only volume that needs corrected. Are we only to submit the revised Volume II and the SF30 for Amendment 0010 or are we to submit all volumes? | Please see the answer to question #1. |
| 11 | I have signed addendum, and I have authorized our proposals validity until October 31, 2017. I have attached the electronic version, was not sure if still needed to submit two copies? Could you please advise? | Please see the answer to question #8. |
| 12 | Would you be able to clarify the status of your source selection? Based on information we received last night we believed that final awards had already been made. Was there an initial round of awards made to qualified bidders, followed by this round of ENs to see if additional bidders can be qualified? | Thank you for your inquiry. In accordance with the solicitation, Phase 1 awards have been made. Phase 2 is now ongoing. |
| 13 | The EN response says: |
i. The Government was unable to obtain any verifying or corroborating information from a Government source regarding the past performance of the offeror for Example X. Therefore, the offeror received an Unknown (Neutral) Confidence rating for these examples. Does this mean that the Army could not get in touch with our POCs to verify this information?
| Thank you for your inquiry. There are a variety of reasons why the Government may not have recieved corroborating information. | ||
| 14 | Can you confirm that our pricing should just be for one labor hour per position not multiple hours? Also, this is Amendment 0010, I did not see 8 or 9 listed on FBO. Are there two more Amendments? I want to ensure I provide signed SF30s of all the Amendments. | Please refer to the discussion letter provided to you. Please see response to question #2. |
| 15 | Specifically there is a format specified in Attachment 1 that we need to follow to answer one of our ENs. I have gone on the FBO website and the only attachment I can download is Attachment 6. Can you provide me the Attachments electronically or point me to a website so we can down load them? | Attachment 0001 (cost) and 0002 (Sample Small Business Participation Report) were previously provided, and are also provided within this email chain. |
| 16 | Can you please clarify the ordering period as shown in L.14.9 and the revised CLINs 1001 and 1004? Should the dates be - "The optional ordering period for this contract is 15 May 2022 to 14 May 2027" in the revised L.14.9? | The dates in L.14.9 are for evaluation purposes only and remain unchanged. Volume 3 Cost shall use the dates outlined in L.14.9 . Solicitation paragraph L.15.4.2.4.1 states "the indirect rates reflected in the supporting documentation provided should exactly match the indirect expense rates in the proposal. If the rates do not match, the offeror shall provide adequate detail explaining how the proposed indirect rates are realistic". Therefore, an offeror shall propose IAW the dates in L.14.9 and provide the appropriate support documentation. |
| 17 | For Past Performance, all of the points of contact we referenced have changed since submission. Would the Government allow for us to update the POC information to list the current POCs? Or shall we provide the email address for the ACO listed in our previous submission? | Thank you for your inquiry. In accordance with the discussion letter, if an offeror has information to update, then the offeror can do so. Please see the answer to question #1. |
| 18 | I just want to confirm that all we need to do is correct the spreadsheet formulas and resubmit Attachment 1 along with any related changes in the cost narrative or other volumes.Your letter says, "Offerors are not required to update proposals except to address ENs...". We interpret this to mean that no other changes / updates should be made in the Attachment 1 spreadsheet. Please confirm that this is correct. | Please see answer to question #1. |
| 19 | 1) If we are not making changes to all volumes in our proposal, do we need to resubmit the volumes where we made no changes? |
2) EN #1 states that we did not provide a statement per L.15.3.2 for all efforts over the last three years. Our Volume 2 - Past Performance submission contained no general content section to make such a statement. Can we provide a summary statement as a response to the EN affirming that we have received no such events in accordance with L.15.3.2.a-h, or do you require us to revise Volume 2 to include a statement to that effect in the proposal text?
3) According to the letter opening discussions, if we have no new events to report (L.15.3.2) then, according to the Discussion Letter, we need to make a statement to this effect. Do you need us simply to make a summary statement in our responding letter or do you need us to revise the Volume 2 document, itself, to include said statement?
| 1.) Please see the answer to question #1. 2.) If an EN was received about the past performance volume, then the EN shall be addressed through revisions to the past performance volume. 3.) The update to Past Performance, in accordance with the discussion letter, will be accepted as a separate document in Phase 2. Please see answer to question #1. | ||
| 20 | Can you please verify that we are only sign off on the Amendment 10 and return with our EN responses? I see that we signed Mod 6 back in June 2016; however, not sure what ever happened with Mods 7-9. | Thank you for your inquiry. Please see response to question #1. |
| 21 | 1. The base and optional ordering period has been revised in Section 1 and 2 in the purpose of this amendment. Please advise if the revised ordering periods are to be reflected in Section 5. Currently, this section reflects a Base Ordering Period from 29 July 2015 – 28 July 2020 and an Optional Ordering Period from 29 July 2020 – 28 July 2025. |
2. In Section 6, Paragraph L.15.1.2 was updated to the paragraph below:
SF 33 and SF 30 forms shall be signed as required in accordance with FAR 4.102. Digital signatures or handwritten signatures on a scanned copy are acceptable. Submission of the SF 33 and SF 30 forms is not included in the page limit for the cover letter. By signing and submitting the signed SF 30 form for Solicitation Amendment 0010, the offeror acknowledges the Solicitation and Amendments 0001 through 0010 (with the exception of Amendment 0007, which was administratively canceled), and affirms the entire proposal will remain valid through October 31, 2018. Offeror proposals that do not remain valid through October 31, 2018 shall not be considered for award.
| The paragraph references Amendments 0007 through 0009. The last modification we received was Amendment 0006 on 09 June 2016. We respectfully requests clarification on Amendments 0007 through 0009 and copies to be forwarded for our records. In addition, please confirm by signing Amendment 0010, we are not required to submit the previously signed amendments. | Please see answers to questions #2 and #16. | ||
| 22 | The Discussion Letter and associated EN relates to our Past Performance volume only, and no revisions are anticipated relative to the other proposal volumes. Please advise as to whether we are expected to submit all proposal volumes, whether or not revised, or just those proposal volume(s) that have been revised. | See answer to question #1. | |
| 23 | In Amendment 10, Section B, CLINs show base ordering dates as : |
• For Section B, CLINs 0001 through 0004, Amendment 10 states “The base ordering period for this contract is the date of contract award to 14 May 2022.”
• Section L.14.9 of Amendment 10 appears to contradict that by saying “For proposal purposes only, the anticipated ordering period is ten (10) years with one five (5) year base ordering period and oneoptional five (5) year ordering period as follows:
Base Ordering Period: 29 July 2015 - 28 July 2020 (5 years) Optional Ordering Period: 29 July 2020 - 28 July 2025 (5 years)”
As we make our revision to Volume 3 Cost, should we follow the dates shown in Amendment 10 section B or Amendment 10, Section L?
| See answer to question #16. | ||
| 24 | Are signed copies of Amendments 8 and 9 due by 0800 on June 15, 2017? | Please see answer to question #5. |
| 25 | 1. Cost Proposal - In our original cost proposal submitted in 2015, we used the DCAA approved 2015 provisional rates for the base period. In our FPR, should we keep the same 2015 indirect rates to minimize the proposal changes or change them to 2017 DCAA approved indirect rates? |
2. Should we submit only the changed proposal files or submit all of them including the ones which are not changed?
| See answers to questions #1, #2, and #16. | ||
| 26 | My question is whether we will have to submit the entire proposal that we initially submitted or would the updated cover letter with the updates highlighted and the enclosures (SF30 & Overtime Policy) all that we will need to submit. | Thank you for your inquiry. Please see response to question #1. |
| 27 | In the event of a company name change, are there any additional actions that we need to take for this procurement as a result of the name change? | Thank you for your inquiry. In accordance with L.15.3.5 of the solicitation as to Predecessor Companies- "if the proposed past performance was performed by a predecessor company, provide the information for the recent and relevant contract of the predecessor company and document the history of the evolution from the predecessory company. Not to exceed one (1) page." In addition, if the company has undergone a change in entity, including but not limited to novations, mergers, and acquisitions, then offerors must update any corresponding section(s) of their proposal that are affected and explain the nature of the change to the Government. Please see answer to question #1. |
| 28 | what date is being utilized as the “date of this solicitation”? Is this 2015Mar25 as listed on the original solicitation or is it 2017May16, the date of Amendment 10? |
Context of question: since there is almost 2 years difference between the two dates, one could infer that L.15.2.2.b means a contract that starts after 2015Mar25 and before final submission date of the phase 2 submissions would satisfy this requirement based upon the way it is written due to the fact that it is within 3 years of the original date of the solicitation.
| The date of the solicitation remains March 25, 2015. L.15.2.2b states "any portion of contract or order performance occurred within three (3) years of the date of this solicitation. Therefore, eligible examples would be from March 25, 2012 through March 25, 2018. | ||
| 29 | Are the effective dates of contractors' proposed labor rates to be June 1, 2017 since contractors' rates need to be updated from the previous submittal? | See answer to quesiton #16. |
| 30 | When we submitted our proposal, our company was a Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB). Now, our company is a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB). For the Reps and Certs. In section K, we selected the option to go with what is in the SAM database. Our status is now correctly reflected in the SAM database. Will our company be reviewed as a SDVOSB | See answer to question #7. |
| 31 | General Question: Can the Government indicate how many additional companies they plan to award too in Phase 2? |
Section L.15.4.1.2: Can you confirm that the pricing submitted should be the direct labor rates and just for one hour (not the full price of an FTE)?
| General Question:The number of awardees in Phase 2 is to be determined in accordance with the solicitation. With respect to the cost question, please refer to the discussion letter issued to you. | |
| 32 | Paragraph L.15.2.2.f requires the Offeror to demonstrate “that the three proposed contracts/orders all have overlapping periods of performance.“ |
Q1. In order to meet this requirement, can the Offeror propose (substitute) a different contract/order for an original one?
Q2. If yes, can the substituted contract have been awarded after the original RS3 Proposal submission date?
| Q1. Yes. Please see response to question #1. Offerors are also reminded that if one volume is revised, then the offeror is responsible to ensure consistency with its other volumes and make revisions to other volumes as necessary. Proposal information must be clear and consistent across all volumes. Any changes within the volumes (to address ENs) which are resubmitted shall be either highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal. Q2. Please see answer to question #28. | ||
| 33 | If an offeror is required to correct formula errors in RFP Attachment 1 as a result of an EN, should the offeror only correct the formula errors addressed in the EN or is the offeror required to update rates and factors in RFP Attachment 1? | Thank you for your inquiry. Please see response to question #1. Please refer to the discussion letter issued to you. |
| 34 | The EN letter we received on 16 May states: |
“In accordance with solicitation paragraph L.15.1.2, by signing and submitting the signed SF 30 form for Solicitation Amendment 0010, the offeror acknowledges the Solicitation and Amendments 0001 through 0010 (with the exception of Amendment 0007, which was administratively canceled), and affirms the entire proposal will remain valid through October 31, 2018. Offeror proposals that do not remain valid through October 31, 2018 shall not be considered for award. “
Q1: Does signing the SF 30 for Amendment 10 and submitting two (2) electronic copies of it negate the need to sign and submit Amendment’s 8 and 9 included in your 18 May email?
In paragraph 2 of your email on 18 May, you state:
“In accordance with solicitation paragraph L.14.3, all Phase 2 communications shall be conducted only in writing directly to the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer as identified both in the Standard Form 33 and in this e-mail.”
We only received SF30’s and did not receive any SF33 within either the 16 or 18 May email packets.
Q2: Are we missing some documentation that includes an SF33 or are you referring to the original SF33 we submitted in our initial submission packet? Do you want us to re-submit a revised SF33 or just the SF30 for Amendment 10 with our Phase 2 submission packet?
Q3: Do you want a separate file containing only the SF30’s along with our revised proposal packets?
| Q1: Yes Q2: The SF 33 is the original SF 33 you submitted in your initial submission packet. By signing and submitting signed SF 30 form for solictiaton Amendment 0010, the offeror acknowledges the solicitation and amendments 0001 through 0010. The SF 33 does not need to be resubmitted. See anwser to question #1. Q3: Only Amendment 0010 SF 30 needs to be submitted. Please see answer to question #1. | ||
| 35 | The EN letter and Amendment 10 states that contractors are required to update their proposal validity period through 10/31/18. Are contractors to state somewhere in Blk. 12 of their original submitted SF33 that their proposal is valid through 10/31/18 or where specifically is that to be stated? | Thank you for your inquiry. By signing the SF 30 form for Solicitation Amendment 0010, the offeror is affirming the entire proposal will remain valid through October 31, 2018. |
| 36 | 1. Will the Government confirm that Offerors do not need tosubmit a summary of changes, as long as changes are easily identifiable withinrevised proposals? |
2. Will the Government accept the signed SF30 for Amendment 10as an attachment to the revised proposal?
3. Does the Government require submission of the entireproposal or only the volumes that have been revised?
| Thank you for your inquiry. 1. A summary of changes is not required. All revisions in the offeror's proposal shall be either highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal. 2. Yes 3. See answer to question #1. | ||
| 37 | Question: Should offerors submit only those proposal files that have been revised in response to Evaluation Notices (ENs), or should offerors submit the latest version of each file that comprises its proposal (i.e., the current proposal baseline), whether revised in response to an EN or unchanged from its original proposal submission? | See answer to question #1. |
| 38 | L.15.4.2.4 notes, “If providing an FPRR, FPRP, Approved Provisional Rates Proposal, or other statement of current rates, offerors shall include three (3) years of historical actual pool and base information (by expense account) that validates the proposed rates.” |
When evaluating an offeror’s revised proposal related to the submission of three (3) years of historical actual and base information (by expense account) that validates an offeror’s proposed rates, please confirm that the Government is still seeking historical supporting cost data for the three (3) years PRIOR to the submission of the offeror’s RS3 proposal in 2015 and not current pricing data. Likewise, please confirm that any other cost or price adjustments to an offeror’s proposal shall be made using 2015 data.
| See answer to question #16. | ||
| 39 | In accordance with the EN Discussion letter, all offerors are required to submit one (1) revised proposal. With that said, offerors are not required to update proposals except to address EN's. As part of this submission, are the offerors required to resubmit the original proposal files that have not been updated? | Thank you for your inquiry. Please see response to question #1. |
| 40 | 1. Confirming that offerors are only to submit proposal artifacts affected by Phase 2 and not to resubmit any proposal artifacts not affected by Phase 2? |
2. If an offeror includes a cover letter with its response, should it follow all the requirements listed in L.15.1 of the solicitation or is it not beholden to those requirements?
| Thank you for your inquiry. 1. Please see response to question #1. 2. All requirements included in the solicitation, as updated in Amendments 0001-0010, remain unchanged and shall be followed with any resubmissions. | |
| 41 | 1. How many additional RS3 SB awards are anticipated? |
2. When will Phase 2 awards be made?
| Thank you for your inquiry. 1. Please see answer to question #31. 2. Currently estimated no later than October 31, 2018. | ||
| 42 | Will the government consider multiple, successive bridge contracts from the same agency for the same statement of work as a single past performance citation in order to meet the overlapping period requirements for past performance relevancy? | Thank you for your inquiry. The terms and conditions included in the solicitation, as updated in Amendments 0001-0010, remain unchanged and shall be followed. Please refer to the discussion letter issued to you. |
| 43 | Understanding: |
We had submitted the supporting information for the Indirect Expense rates based on our financial information as of April 2015 and three prior years (FY 2012, FY 2013 and FY 2014). Per part of the Evaluation Notice (EN), we need to resubmit the Cost Proposal.
Question:
Can we base the indirect expense rates for the re-submission based on the current information (as of May 2017) and three prior years as that could provide a better value for the Government or should we use the same basis that we used during the initial submission?
| Please see answer to question #16. | |
| 44 | We submitted pay stubs for qualified employees on our initial submission as our Direct Labor Rate supporting documentation. These employees are no longer available. |
Question: Will the Government allow resubmission of new Direct Labor Rate supporting documentation?
| Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 45 | In our 2015 original proposal, we submitted indirect rate information for the most recent three (3) years (2014, 2013, and 2012). |
| Question: Will the Government allow resubmission of indirect rate information for the most recent three (3) years (2016, 2015, and 2014) in replacement of the previously submitted rates? | Please see answer to question #1. | ||
| 46 | Please confirm that offerors are to submit with their proposal submission only the volumes that have changed as well as a signed copy of amendment 10, and that offerors may certify to no new past performance events pursuant to paragraph L.15.3.2 in the body of the submission email or in a separate EN cover letter. | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 47 | Based on the government's instructions that "Direct labor rates shall be proposed as the hourly rate and offerors shall not assume multiple hours or FTEs", are we to assume that the total proposed cost for each period should not include any multiplier for the hours in a productive work year? Please confirm that the total proposed costs in the summary tab should be a sum of the proposed fully burdened rates only and that we are not to apply any hours in determining the total cost. | Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the discussion letter issued to you. | |
| 48 | Are offerors able to adjust direct labor costs for cost reasonableness based on current market salary information? | Please see answer to question #16. | |
| 49 | Are offerors able to update their indirect costs based on current rates and if so, are they then required to provide updated substantiation for those rates within the Cost Narrative? | Please see anwer to question #1. | |
| 50 | In response to our ENs, we have a couple of very specific questions related to pricing that will require us to provide proprietary information to government. Would there be a methodology whereby we would be able to submit questions to the government that would not be posted publicly? | Thank you for your inquiry. All answers provided by the Government will be posted publicly. | |
| 51 | Per the Evaluation Notice letter that we received regarding the Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3) opportunity, the document states “The Offeror shall submit no more than one (1) revised proposal…” We would like to clarify if we should submit only volumes that we made changes to or if we should resubmit all volumes. | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 52 | Are contractors only required to sign and submit amendment 0010 with their revised proposal submission and the previously submitted SF 33 and SF 30s are not required to be submitted with the revised proposals? | Please see answers to questions #1 and #5. | |
| 53 | Are contractors to submit a brand new cover letter to accompany their revised proposals? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 54 | Previously we had provided our FPRP labor BOEs describing our labor rate builds in our proposal. Additionally, we had also pointed to allowing an on-site examination of payroll records. However, it was determined by the Government that this did not satisfy the requirement. 1. Could the Government clarify that if a contractor utilize their FPRP to bid the direct labor dollars, is the data buildup for those specific FPRP rates (which is forecasting off of actuals) sufficient to meet the requirement? 2. For indirect rates, is the same thing required as well. Do contractors need to provide FPRP data buildup for the indirect rates and will that data satisfy the requirement? | Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the discussion letter issued to you and to the solicitation. | |
| 55 | “L.15.2.2 Each of the three (3) examples included in the corporate experience proposal shall meet all of the following minimum requirements: |
a. Contract or order period of performance, including option periods, shall be, at a minimum, two (2) years
b. Any portion of contract or order performance occurred within three (3) years of the date of this solicitation…”
Based on these instructions, and the new solicitation that was issued for Phase 2, does “(3) years of the date of this solicitation” mean the original solicitation date or the Phase 2 solicitation date?
| Please see answer to question #28. | |
| 56 | “L.15.4.2.3 In support of proposed DIRECT LABOR RATES the offeror shall provide the most recent documentation that includes at least ONE of the following: |
a. Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA)
b. Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR) from DCAA or DCMA…”
1. Since our first submission, we have received an approved Provisional Billing Rate Letter. Should we update the Cost Narrative to include the new document and rates?
2. Also, if our Approved Rate Letter does not cover all indirect rates, because it was not required to do so, are we allowed to provide actual indirect rates for the uncovered rates?
| Thank you for your inquiry. Please see response to question #1. Also, please refer to the discussion letter issued to you. | ||
| 57 | In lieu of submitting a revised Cover Letter document to incorporate the Amendment 10 SF30 form, will the government accept a Cover Letter addressing only the Phase 2 ENs and the signed Solicitation Amendment 0010 SF30 form per the requirements in L.15.1.2? | Thank you for your inquiry. The answer is No. All revisions in the offeror's proposal shall be either highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal. Plesae refer to the answer to question #1. |
| 58 | Regarding the file submissions for the Phase 2 Evaluation Notice (EN) response, can the government please confirm offerors are only required to submit proposal documents that have been revised in response to EN discussion and that the government does not require the resubmission of any documents that have not been revised? | Please see answer to question #1. |
| 59 | If offferor X has questions that are specific to the circumstances of our proposal, should we submit them to you directly? They are procedural questions based upon the ENs you provided to us. | Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the discussion letter issued to you. All answers provided by the Government will be posted publicly. |
| 60 | When does the Government anticipate awarding contracts to Phase 2 participants? | Please see answer to question #41. |
| 61 | What is the process for determining Phase 2 awardees? | Phase 2 awardees will be determined in accordance with the solicitation. |
| 62 | The Phase 2 instructions for submitting revised proposals states "All revisions in the offeror's proposal shall be either highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal." Should the offeror choose to use the track changes function in MS Word, will the offeror still be considered compliant if the size of the page shrinks (thus shrinking the font size) to accommodate track changes? | Thank you for your inquiry. In the experience of the Government, the track changes function does not change the actual font size. It only changes the view of the document, which would be acceptable. Offerors are responsible to ensure no other changes occur. Offerors shall comply with the font size and page limits in the solicitation. |
| 63 | Please confirm that the Government only requires resubmittal of the volumes that have revised, rather than the full proposal. | Please see answer to question #1. |
| 64 | Ref: Past Performance Volume. ii. The Government was unable to obtain any verifying or corroborating information from a Government source regarding the past performance of the offeror for Examples 2 & 3. Therefore, the offeror received an Unknown (Neutral) Confidence rating for these examples. Note: The offeror received an Overall Substantial Confidence Assessment Rating for the Past Performance Volume. As stated above, this rating is contingent upon receipt of information required in accordance with Section L.15.3. To ensure the Government receives corroborating information on subject past performance citations, will the Government provide specific instructions the offerors can relay to their clients to ensure they respond in a timely and accurate manner? | Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the discussion letter issued to you and the solicitation. |
| 65 | What filenames should we use for our revised proposal files? | Thank you for your inquiry. Files shall be named IAW solicitation paragraph L.14.7. The MMDDYY shall be the day the proposal is submitted. |
| 66 | What should be the subject line of the revised proposal email submission? | Thank you for your inquiry. Subject line shall be named IAW solicitation paragraph L.14.1 |
| 67 | In Amendment 6, in response to a question (Q2), the Government stated that one signed copy of the amendment is acceptable. Is one signed copy of Amendment 10 also acceptable? | Please see answer to question #6. |
| 68 | Amendment 10, page 24 of 46, Section K (a) (1) states: “The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is -1-.” Similarly, Section K (a) (2) states: “The small business size standard is -2-.” Could the Government please clarify the NAICS code and small business size standard listed for these two items? | Thank you for your inquiry. The NAICS code for this acquisition is 541712 and the small business size standard is 500 employees. |
| 69 | Can the offeror update cost/pricing using current rates (2017) – essentially redoing cost volume? | Please see answers to questions #1 and #16. |
| 70 | Due to personnel changes, can we update proposed personnel? | Please refer to the answer to question #1. Offerors are not required to update or change other aspects of their proposals, but offerors may revise any aspect of their proposal at their own discretion |
| 71 | Do all changes need to be highlighted from original proposal? | Please see answer to question #1. All revisions in the offerors proposal shall be either highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal. |
| 72 | With respect to Phase 2 of the RS3 procurement, is it acceptable to update our pricing, specifically the direct labor rates and indirect rates for the three labor categories that were bid as well as escalation since it has been two years since we submitted our original bid? | Please see answers to questions #1 and #16. |
| 73 | Document W15P7T15R0008-0019 (pg. 38 of 46), Section L.15.4.2.3 lists the following as one example of possible support for proposed direct labor rates: f. Salary survey data that includes: |
i. Source of data
ii. Job title and description
iii. Geographic location
iv. Range of salary amounts with reference to applicability of amounts Please clarify what is meant by "applicability of amounts" in item f. iv.
| Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the discussion letter that was issued to you and to the solicitation. | ||
| 74 | Original cost proposals were based on the original period of performance for the base period (July 29, 2015 through July 28, 2020), and option period (July 29, 2020 through July 28, 2025). Should current cost proposals, including amounts and supporting salary documentation, be updated to reflect the new period of performance, which is date of award (approximately October, 2017) through May 14, 2022, for the base period and May 15, 2022 through May 14, 2027 for the option period? | Please see answers to questions #1 and #16. |
| 75 | Document W15P7T15R0008-0019 (pg. 38 of 46), Section L.15.4.2.4 requests the following as one of the examples of recent documentation for indirect expenses rates: b. DCAA/DCMA report or memorandum containing the most recent finalized DCAA/DCMA audit or review showing indirect rate calculations with pools and bases AND three (3) years of Certified Actual Incurred Cost pool and base (by expense account) information that validates the calculations. Please advise if this should be the three most recent years (i.e. 2014 - 2016) or if should be the three years prior to the original submission (i.e. 2012 - 2014). | |
| Please see answers to questions #1 and #16. | ||
| 76 | Are we to submit the entire original RS3 proposal again with all changes tracked and/or highlighted or just a new cover letter, signed MOD 0010 SF30, and any changed documents/spreadsheets for which clarification or corrective action was required based on the Evaluation Notice assessment? | Please see answer to question #1. |
| 77 | Our EN below addresses Administrative Contracting Officer listed on the Past Performance examples we submitted. The Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Energy (which were the agencies we cited) do not use ACO’s. How would the government like us to address this? Should we use the CO as the ACO or explain in our cover letter? "Solicitation Volume 2, Paragraph L.15.3.1.d – Requires offeror to provide Government contract administration activity, Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) name, telephone number, and email address. |
| Offeror did not provide the Government contract administration activity, the ACO’s name, telephone number, or email address for examples 1, 2 & 3." | Thank you for your inquiry. When responding to an EN, please provide the information that was requested and/or explain why you cannot provide the information, in which case the Government will evaluate the response to determine whether the answer satisfies the requirements of the solicitation. | ||
| 78 | We intend to provide our response to the ENs electronically to the contract specialist and contract officer identified the Phase 2 discussion letter, however is a hard-copy response also required? | Please see answer to question #8 | |
| 79 | Please clarify if an error was found in the naming convention “OFFERORA COST 050615” of OfferorA’s Volume 3 Cost submission. OfferorA’s EN response Cost Volume naming convention will be “OFFERORA COST 061517”. Please confirm if the referenced naming convention for the EN response will be compliant. | Thank you for your inqury. Please refer to the discussion letter that was issued to you. | |
| 80 | Please clarify if the issue as stated on page 4 of OFFERORA EN, dated 16 May 2017, Section d. Volume 3 Cost, is the only issue to be addressed in OFFERORA ’s EN response for Volume 3 – Cost | Thank you for your inqury. Please refer to the discussion letter that was issued to you. | |
| 81 | Please clarify and confirm if OFFERORA’s EN response to the issue as stated in our EN, Section d. Volume 3 Cost, should show the rates in dollars on Columns C11-C22 and K11-22 for direct labor and indirect expense for the base and option period. | Thank you for your inqury. Please refer to the discussion letter that was issued to you. | |
| 82 | Should OFFERORA’s Cost Volume include columns with visible formula as well as the rates in dollars on Columns C11-C22 and K11-22 for direct labor and indirect expense for the base and option period. | Thank you for your inquiry. Solicitation - W15P7T-15-R-0008_ATT_1_AMD_1.xlsx states "Offerors shall include visible formulas to illustrate all calculations in the proposal submission. | |
| 83 | We are updating our price submission with the amended excel template. Is it acceptable to add the original pricing as additional tabs and strike out the text, and put our new pricing into the correct format with a note in the summary tab of our changes? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 84 | Should we also provide updates to our Pricing Narrative Document with the same information in the amended excel template tracking changes with strikethrough? | Please see answer to questioin #1. | |
| 85 | If the offeror is only making revisions to the cost portion of the proposal, should they submit the entire proposal, or only the portions that have been updated? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 86 | Background: “In order to be considered for further evaluation, the Offeror shall carefully review the enclosed discussion questions and submit a revised proposal addressing the items identified by the Government.” … “Offerors are not required to update proposals except to address ENs and to update past performance events requested pursuant to paragraph L.15.3.2 of the solicitation.” Question: The Government issued 4 ENs to us which will require us to amend and highlight two volumes of our original submittal. Does the Government require us to submit the two amended proposal volumes only or resubmit the entire proposal including both the two amended volumes and the remainder of the unchanged proposal? | See question #1 | |
| 87 | Does the Government anticipate competing work across Phase 1 awardees before Phase 2 awards are made? | Thank you for your inquiry. IAW solicitation paragraph M.4.1, "The Government intends to begin issuing task order RFPs and awards immediately after Phase 1 contract awards are made | |
| 88 | When does the Government anticipate Phase 2 awards to begin being made? | Please see answer to question #60. | |
| 89 | How many full-and-open and small business awards is the Government targeting for Phase 2? | Please see answer to question #31. | |
| 90 | Will the Government please provide guidance for the total dollar figure against which to calculate small business estimates? | Thank you for your inquiry. Offeror shall submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the clauses in L.15.5. | |
| 91 | "Offeror A" has a unique event in which we proposed this bid under "Offeror B" dba "Offeror A" at time of submission. Since submission "Offeror A" has been bought out from "Offeror B" and is its own corporation with its own DUNS and Cage Number. It was the intent of the sale that any outstanding bids proposed under "Offeror B" dba "Offeror A" would be novated to the new company "Offeror C", barring customer approval. With the EN's requested of "Offeror B" dba "Offeror A" - may "Offeror A" bid this as their own under the new DUNS and Cage. Or must the response to the EN's requested be submitted under "Offeror B"? | Please see answer to question #27. | |
| 92 | Would the Government like the offeror to submit all volumes or just the Phase 2 EN revised volumes? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 93 | Would the Government please clarify which signed amendments should be included in our proposal submission? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 94 | Would the Government allow the offeror to provide CPARs as an appendices to Volume 2: Past Performance? | Offerors must adhere to the page limits IAW Solicitation L.15.3.1 | |
| 95 | L.14.7 For updated volumes, should the filenames use the date of the original proposal (e.g., 050615) or the date of the Phase 2 proposal (e.g., 061517)? | Please refer to the answer to question #65. | |
| 96 | L.14.7: If the entire proposal must be resubmitted, should the unmodified volume filenames use the date of the original proposal (e.g., 050615) or the date of the Phase 2 proposal (e.g., 061517)? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 97 | L.15.1.2 The RFP instructs offerors to submit a new SF30 and SF33, yet no SF33 is included in Mod 0010. Does this mean we should re-sign/re-submit the SF33 that accompanied the original RFP? | Please see answers to question #1 and #5. | |
| 98 | L.15.1.3 Our EN letter requests we attach to it information in accordance with L-9, 52.237-10 -- Identification of Uncompensated Overtime. Can this information be embedded in the cover letter, rather than an attachment, as long as the cover letter page limit is still met? | Please follow the solicitation instructions IAW solicitation paragraph L.15.1.3 | |
| 99 | L.15.3.2 Our EN letter specifies that Phase 2 offerors must affirm the absence of information pursuant to paragraph L.15.3.2. Can we put this affirmation in the cover letter, or is that affirmation required in an updated Past Performance volume? | Please see answer to question #19. | |
| 100 | SF30 Mo 0010 Block 11 requires 2 signed copies of the SF30. However the EN letter says to submit only one revised proposal. Does this mean we should attach two identical electronic SF30s to the email, but only one copy of everything else? | Please see answer to question #8. | |
| 101 | EN Letter Can we submit our Phase 2 proposal early (e.g., 31 May), and if "yes" what date should we use in the filenames? | Yes. Please see answer to question #65. | |
| 102 | Are offerors required to re-submit all three volumes or just those volumes requiring corrections along with the Amendment 10 SF30? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 103 | 1. If the ownership of a company has change as a result of an acquisition, but the bidding entity remains the same, should the proposal be modified to address this change or address just the posed ENs? | Please see answer to quesiton #27. | |
| 104 | Intentionally Omitted | Intentionally Omitted | |
| 105 | Could the government please provide clarification on EN d. iii regarding the requirement for 3 years of historical indirect cost and allocation base information: In our original proposal, we used provisional rates for XXXX fiscal year ending December 31, 2014. Are those rates included in the 3-year historical requirement, or is the requirement in addition to those rates such that you want to see rates for years ending 2013, 2012 and 2011 as well? | Please see answer to question #16. | |
| 106 | Can Offerors update pricing samples in order to support the direct labor rates based on 2017 market/business date vs. using 2015 information? | Please see answer to quesiton #16. | |
| 107 | Are there examples of data that can be submitted to address the question around applicability of amounts for salary information? | Thank you for your inquiry. Please refer to the solicitation | |
| 108 | Amendment 10 includes several modified clauses in Section K. Is the offeror required to update Section K in its revised proposal? If so, should Section K be submitted as part of an updated cover letter or separately? | Please see answer to quesiton #7. | |
| 109 | If offerors are not required to resubmit a cover letter, in what file shall offerors include the signed Amendment 10 SF30? | It may be submitted as a separate file | |
| 110 | The original submission instructions gave specific direction on how offerors were to name the electronic files submitted. How shall the revised files be named? Shall offerors use the same format as our original submission only using the 061517 submission date? | All terms, conditions and instructions of the solicitation, to include amendments 0001-0010 apply to proposal resubmissions. Please see answer to question #65. | |
| 111 | For the Excel file, does the government want the offeror to highlight only the cells where we updated the formula? | All revisions in the offerors proposal shall be iether highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal. Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 112 | EN letter states that "Except as described above, offerors are not required to update or change other aspects of their proposals, but offerors may revise any aspect of their proposal at their own discretion." The EN letter also states that "Revised proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation, including all amendments.". Amendment 0010, Section L.15.4.2.3 states the following "In support of proposed DIRECT LABOR RATES the offeror shall provide the most recent documentation.[that supports the offerors rates]." The original proposal was submitted 06 May 2015, over two years ago. Should offerors update their pricing to reflect more current documentation to support labor rates? Or will updated rates be requested and evaluated at the task order RFP level? | Please see answer to question #16. | |
| 113 | Please see pages 35-36 in Amendment 10: Section L.15.3 Volume 2 Past Performance states each past performance example shall not exceed three (3) pages. Please see page 3 of the Discussion Letter: "Solicitation Volume 2, Paragraph L.15.3.2 – Requires offeror to provide copies of events in accordance with L.15.3.2.a-h, including a narrative and any corrective actions taken, not to exceed one (1) page per event. If none were received, the offeror shall state so in the proposal." Question: Does the statement in the Discussion letter mean that we can add an additional page to explain events? i.e., This would extend the page limit to 4 pages each per past performance example. | Offerors shall comply with all page limits in the solicitation. | |
| 114 | Amendment 10, Section A. There is a conflict between the dates stated in Section A “Supplemental Information” and Section B “Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs”. Please clarify the new Period of Performance (POP) | The dates in section A and B are accurate. Please see answer to question #16. | |
| 115 | RFP Attachment 0001 “Cost”The EN Letter states: “All revisions in the offeror’s proposal shall be either highlighted (or stricken, where appropriate) in the original proposal or shown using tracked changes applied to the original proposal.” Given that track changes is not available in Excel, would Government accept that offerors highlight impacted cells within the Excel file in Appendix A of Cost Volume? | Please see answer to question #111. | |
| 116 | Discussions and Evaluation Notices (ENs) Letter It is our understanding that the Government would like to see ENs responded to only through proposal revisions and that a supplemental document responding to each EN is not required. Please confirm that this understanding is accurate. | Please see answer to quesiton #1. | |
| 117 | Discussions and Evaluation Notices (ENs) Letter Would the Government like Offerors to resubmit only the proposal volumes containing revisions or all proposal volumes, including those volumes that remained unchanged? | Please see answer to question #1. | |
| 118 | Section M of the RS3 RFP specifically M.4.2 specifically states that the Government reserves the right not to conduct Phase 2 if sufficient awards are made in Phase 1. Phase 2 will only be conducted if the Government determines that Phase 1 resulted in an insufficient number of awards. An insufficient number of awards is less than 15 small businesses or less than 25 large businesses. Based on our review, there are 15 large businesses so far in the Phase I assemblage. How many additional unrestricted awards does the government plan to release in Phase II, and what is the timeline for awards. | Please see answer to question #31. |
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 .