USG Responses to CHS-6 Questions 31-Oct-22 KO.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15P7T23R0001
About this file
This is a solicitation for the Common Hardware Systems 6th Generation (CHS-6) contract, a ten-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract valued at an estimated $7.9 billion. The Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground is seeking proposals to provide total lifecycle system management solutions including commercial information technology equipment, supplies, components, customizable sustainment strategies, non-personal services and continuous technology upgrades. Delivery orders, basic purchase orders, and task orders will be issued on a firm-fixed-price or cost-reimbursement basis for hardware, services, engineering support, logistics and more. Proposals are due on the date specified in the solicitation. Award will be made using best value tradeoff procedures to the offeror providing the most benefit to the government.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 59 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
USG Response, Oct 2022
| Question and/or Recommendation | USG Response |
| The RFP section L (L.2.3.2.2) requires offerors to provide copies of vendor quotes for the initial 14 items “so that the Government can verify the validity of the proposal”. RFP section M (M.2.3.1) states that the price for these 14 items is part of the Total Evaluated Firm Fixed Price, and “The Offeror’s Firm Fixed Prices will NOT be evaluated for realism.” Please clarify how the Government will evaluate the prices proposed for these 14 items. Does the Government verifying the validity of the vendor quotes constitute evaluation for realism? How will the Government evaluate an offeror who makes a business decision to propose a firm fixed price that is lower than the vendor quote? | |
| 1. The prices proposed for the 14 items will be evaluated for completeness and fair and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). |
2. The Government verifying the validity of vendor quotes is for completeness and fair and reasonableness, not price realism. The Government will also utilize the vendor quotes as part of the technical evaluation to determine whether or not the items proposed meet the Government's requirements as set forth in the Solicitation.
3. Proposing a price that is different from the quote is a business decision that each offeror may make.
| PWS 3.8.2.6 states "IKs also include configuration management, EOL management and any selected warranty options." Attachment 0008 shows that 3-year, 5-year, and 8-year warranties cannot be purchased for IKs. Request the Government clarify which warranties can be provided for IKs other than the OEM Warranty. | The USG has removed the mention of warranty in PWS section 3.8.2.6 |
| Will the Government please clarify, "with initial availability 60 DAC"? | USG updated the initial due date of CDRL B004 from 60 days to 90 days. The first monthly TASS report should be provided to the Government within 90 days after contract award. |
| Building off QA response #161 to the Draft RFP - regarding any relationship between the pricing of the different Warranty terms (3-Year, 5-Year, 8-Year); can the Government please confirm these are NOT additive? For example, can the Government please confirm if an Option for a 5-Year Warranty is ordered, the Government will only pay the percentage listed in the 5-Year Warranty per each category and quantity band, and will NOT pay the 3-Year and then add the 5-Year warranty price to build up the total 5-Year Warranty price? | The Government will only pay the Warranty price based on the percentage listed for the year selected (i.e. 3, 5 or 8). No percentages will be added together. |
| Will the Government confirm if the Common Hardware Systems 6th Generation contract has been identified as a Department of Defense "pathfinder" CMMC contract? And if not, will the Government remove DFARS 252.204-7021 from Section I of the RFP? | The PWS does not require the contractor to have a specific CMMC level, Therefore the USG will remove DFARS 252.204-7021 |
| PWS 3.8.2.5 Operational Transit Case (OTC) has a note underneath Table 1 that states "*The most recent version at the time of the TI/TO/DO/BPO shall apply." PWS 3.5 lists "Modifications, integration, kitting, assembly, and/or test activities", which would apply to OTCs, as not applicable for BPOs. Request the Government delete the reference to BPO in PWS 3.8.2.5. | The USG has removed the mention of BPOs in PWS section 3.8.2.5 |
| Will the Government please consider granting a 15-day extension? | A 15 day extension shall be granted. |
| According to DFAR 252.234.7100 Policy, the cost and software data reporting (CSDR) requirement is mandatory for major defense acquisition programs (MDAP)(as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2430), and major automated information system programs (MAIS) (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2445a). Since the CHS program is not a designated MDAP or MAIS program this clause should not apply. Will the Government please remove the DFARs Clauses 252.234-7003 Notice of Cost and Software Data Reporting System information system pro– Basic and 252.234-7004 Cost and Software Data Reporting System from the RFP? | The USG will remove DFARS 252.234-7003 & DFARS 252.234-7004 clauses from the contract. |
| PWS 3.4 states "The ARO date shall match the corresponding proposed ARO date that was submitted during the TI process. The contractor shall be contractually bound to meet this ARO date." In response to Question 85 for the July draft RFP, the Government responded "Because any item can be ordered at any time, the Government will verify the ARO at the time a DO/BPO is placed. The Prime Vendor will then verify, and if needed, will update the ARO to the current timeline. The ARO displayed in the TI phase is to help the customer plan their lead times." Request the Government delete the PWS 3.4 sentence "The ARO dates shall match the corresponding proposed ARO date that was submitted during the TI process." | No, The ARO date submitted during the TI Process will be the baseline ARO for that item. In extenuating circumstances, the ARO may change. If the Prime confirms with the OEM that the ARO date has permanently changed, then the Prime will submit a request to the USG requesting an update to the baseline ARO date. |
| As prescribed in DFARS 219.708(b)(1)(B), In contracts with contractors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the Test Program described in 219.702-70, including contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, use the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), instead of the clauses at 252.219-7003 , Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), FAR 52.219-9, will the government incorporate DFARS 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) for those contractors holding a negotiated Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | The Government will incorporate DFARS clause 252.219-7004 in contracts as applicable. This clause does not apply to solicitations. |
| The accompanying 2.2 DO Process Flow diagram does not show the RFP step described in 2.1 process narrative. Will the Government please update the 2.2 process graphic to include the RFP step? | The icon that describes the Prime's responsibility to review and provide a proposal within 10 business days is the bi-color diamond shape with the words "Concur?" in the center. |
| As prescribed in DFARS 219.708(b)(2), In contracts with contractors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the Test Program described in 219.702-70 , do not use the clause at FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages–Subcontracting Plan, will the government remove FAR 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan for those companies holding a negotiated Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | As prescribed in FAR 19.708(b)(2), this clause applies to solicitations. The Government will remove FAR 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan in contracts as applicable. |
| By requesting valid pricing for 14 items as part of the CHS-6 price evaluation, the Government is evaluating an offeror's buying power and ability to negotiate the best product pricing on behalf of the Government. In order to adequately evaluate an offeror's price for the initial 14 items in accordance with M.2.3.4.1, can the Government please confirm offerors must provide a valid quote covering the entire four-year base period which is valid for 365 days from the date of submission? | The Government confirms that vendor quotes are required. All vendor quotes shall cover the full four years, which would be valid from 365 days from submission of the offerors final proposal to the USG. If pricing is different than an explanation should be provided. |
| Sections L.2.2.3.1.i.1.i (TI) and L.2.2.3.1.ii.2.i and ii (DO) list the V1 Dell Laptop 7720 Part #: 751737751. Attachments 0008 and 0009 both list the model number as 7220. Request the Government clarify that the appropriate model number is 7220. | Correct, all three references in Attachment 0008, Attachment 0009 and Section L (Attachment 0014) for the Dell 7220 are the same item (Model: 210-ATEG; OEM P/N: 751737751) |
| 1. Where signature pages are submitted as a PDF file, what file naming convention do you prefer? (e.g., SMALLBIZ-X.pdf where X reflects each signature page? |
2. Where signature pages are submitted as a PDF file, please confirm that a consolidated PDF file is acceptable?
3. Assuming we are permitted to incorporate our Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan, may we submit the entire file as a PDF? Section L.1.1.4.1 has been updated.
1. Follow the same naming convention as the other documents.
2. Yes, a consolidated PDF file is acceptable.
3. Yes, the CSBSP may be submitted as a PDF.
| In Attachment 10, the Product Repair History tab does not include a column for CHS category of equipment. As CHS-6 warranty pricing is by equipment category, this historical data is essential to correctly estimating future warranty costs. Without this data, the incumbent retains a significant and potentially unfair competitive advantage. We request that the Government provide this data. | The USG will update the Product Repair History tab to include CHS Category in amendment #1 on SAM.gov |
| Can the Government confirm if an offeror provides different prices in any of the four base periods for the initial 14 items, each of the prices must be supported by a valid vendor quote? | The Government confirms that vendor quotes are required. All vendor quotes should cover the full four years. |
| Please confirm that the correct Dell product is the Dell Latitude 7220. | Correct, all three references in Attachment 0008, Attachment 0009 and Section L (Attachment 0014) for the Dell 7220 are the same item (Model: 210-ATEG; OEM P/N: 751737751) |
| Will the Government confirm that the IDE and Information Portal will be hosted on a contractor-provided network? | No, the IDE and IP will be hosted on an Army Approved Data Center or Cloud environment. |
| To ensure compliance, please provide a current list of ARCYBER-approved enterprise hosting environments. | The USG will provide the list of enterprise hosting environments along with amendment #1. |
| Enterprise Contractor Manpower Reporting Application at https://cmra.army.mil was decommissioned in June 2020. We recommend PWS Section 3.2, Requirements for Accounting for Contractor Services and CHS-6 Solicitation CLIN 9999 description to be updated so the required information is consistent with the required reporting requirements contained in DFARS 252.204-7023, Reporting Requirements for Contracted Services. Additionally, if the resulting contract provides services in the applicable service portfolio groups, we recommend DFARS 252.204-7023, Reporting Requirements for Contracted Services -- Alternate I (JUL 2021) to be added to the Section I Contract Clauses of the Solicitation. | The USG has updated the PWS to reference the corrected reporting website; https://www.sam.gov |
| Is the submission of the Production Assessment Survey Document (or the information contained therein provided in a different format) included in page count? | As stated in Section L (L.1.1.5) Annexes, documentation, attachments, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) etc., specifically required by this solicitation will not count against the Offeror’s page limitation. |
| SF 1449 states offerors may propose brand name or equal items IAW FAR 52.211-6, and “The salient characteristics are those specifications provided in Section J, Attachment 0009”. Attachment 9 lacks detail, and does not serve well as a specification of the Government’s requirements. This introduces unacceptable risk for the Government should an offeror comply strictly with attachment 9, as written, since the item may not offer the same form, fit, and function needed by the warfighter. The “Brand Name or Equal” provision should be removed from the RFP. | The Government has reviewed Attachment 0009 and determined that the salient characteristics are sufficient for an offeror to propose either a brand name or equivalent item for each of the 14 items listed. The Government will accept Brand Name or Equal (IAW FAR 52.211-6) for the 14 items listed in Attachment 0009 and will not remove the requirement from the RFP. |
| The P/N is the same, but will the GOV confirm the equipment referenced should be Dell Latitude 7220 Rugged (201-ATEG) with P/N 751737751 in both Attachments? | Correct, all three references in Attachment 0008, Attachment 0009 and Section L (Attachment 0014) for the Dell 7220 are the same item (Model: 210-ATEG; OEM P/N: 751737751) |
| PWS 3.4 requires a response to draft order requests, but it does not state the length of time for which the ARO date is valid. Request the Government provide the validity time frame for draft order request responses. | There is no stated length of time for which an ARO is valid. ARO dates are provided in the TI process to provide a planning mechanism for our customers. Based on global supply chain and volatility within certain industries, AROs may fluctuate. The Prime should determine an appropriate ARO for each item and submit ARO exceptions, as needed, as stated in PWS 3.4. |
| Per the previous answers provided, will the USG please delete "including the transition from the incumbent" since there will be no need to coordinate with the incumbent to transition activities from CHS-5 to CHS-6? | The USG has updated Attachment 0014 (Section L) to remove the following language: "including the transition from the incumbent". |
| For consistency with L.2.3.3.8iii, can offerors add the date and volume number to the files listed in L.1.1.4? For example, "CompanyName.CHS6PRICE.XLSX" would instead be named "DATE_COMPANYNAME_VOL_ III_CHS6PRICE.xlsx". | Updated section L.1.1.4 to "Each volume shall be named with date, company name, then the file name (ex: Date_CompanyName_File Name). " |
| PWS Section 4.7.1 states that the Integrated Data Environment (IDE) shall be delivered NLT 180 calendar DAC and that this system shall adhere to the requirements for a contractor-managed system as defined by FAR 4.19, DFARS 252.204-7000, and DFARS 252.204-7012. PWS Section 4.7.2 states that the CHS-6 Information Portal (IP) shall adhere to all applicable requirements of AR 25-1 and pursue an Authorization to Operate (ATO) via the Risk Management Framework. As the ATO process applies to Government Federal IT Systems, this set of different requirements indicates that the IDE and IP are separate and distinct systems (i.e., a contractor managed/hosted IDE and a Government hosted IP) with highly duplicative capabilities to host and manage the CHS-6 data. Maintaining two separate systems that host the same data increases risk of data integrity errors and will dramatically increase the cost and complexity of the solution to the Government. Question: Respectfully request Government confirm that a single contractor managed/hosted solution for a combined IDE/IP that satisfies all requirements to host CHS-6 CUI per the appropriate FAR and DFARS clauses to which Offerors grant the Government access as described in Section 4.7.2 will satisfy both requirements and be considered compliant. | The IDE and IP systems can be hosted together (on an Army Approved Data Center or Cloud environment). Once the contract has been awarded, the USG will work with the Prime to obtain an ATO for CHS-6 IT systems. |
| Section L section states that the offeror shall propose rates for the time period starting in October 2023 for the purposes of this evaluation which conflicts with the solicitation document that shows the periods of performance as 24 August 2023 through 23 August 2033. We request the Government update the solicitation document for periods that will be consistent with the October 2023 start date? | The October timeframe for proposed rates has been selected based on CDRL A005 Phase -In Transition Plan which states "e. The contractor shall be capable of receiving a request for proposal (TI, TO, DO and Configuration Change) from the Government 60 calendar DAC." The Government will not make the recommended change. |
| PWS 3.6 states "The contractor shall offer a controlled bonded storage for items procured via the contract upon request by the Government through a TO, DO, or BPO…" PWS 3.5 lists bonded storage as not applicable for BPOs. Request the Government delete the reference to BPO in PWS 3.6. | The USG has removed the mention of BPOs in PWS section 3.6 (bonded storage) |
| In consideration of the recent DoD Guidance on Inflation and Economic Price Adjustments and in light of the factors impacting inflation uncertainties across the United States and global economies, including the current conflict in the Ukraine, ongoing recovery from the global pandemic, and other disruptions to global supply chains, would the Government include an Economic Price Adjustment clause in the solicitation and resulting contract? | |
| EPA FAR clauses 52.216-2 and 52.216-3 will not be included into the solicitation. ACC/PdL CHS will determine the time frame a hardware item will be on contract. Factors in deciding could be supply and demand, availably of material, and life span of hardware item. This is a single award IDIQ. | |
| Will the Government please clarify this spacing requirement by confirming the intent is to ensure 12pt spacing between paragraphs of narrative? |
Adding standard spacing of 12pt between all headings, bulleted lists, or tables and graphics with their associated figure/ table, graphics labels/ names/ titles can actually make readability more difficult. For example, a table with a series of 8pt font size bulleted sentences would have a 12pt space separating each. This spacing disparity can then lead to confusing linkages between some non-narrative text material or the increased spacing could imply separation of subject material that was not intended.
Recommended replacement language:
| "Each paragraph of narrative text shall be separated by at least one blank line of width meeting 12-point font. The Offeror shall use a standard, 12-point minimum font size. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may be landscape and use a reduced font size not less than 8 point. | Added recommended language to section L.1.1.3.ii. |
| As this section is written, the offeror must include activities in the first year related to work that was not completed by the incumbent by the end of the prior contract's (CHS-5) performance period. |
However, in responses to Questions 143 and 210 from the 22 Jan 2022 draft RFP the Government confirmed that no activities (work, warranty, storage etc.) will transfer from the CHS-5 contract to the CHS-6 contract and that the CHS-6 contractor will start with a "clean slate."
| Request the Government delete the "including the transition from the incumbent" reference for the first year of contract instructions since there will be no need to coordinate with the incumbent to transition activities from CHS-5 to CHS-6. | The USG has updated Attachment 0014 (Section L) to remove the following language: "including the transition from the incumbent". | |
| Could the government verify the SSR will fulfill the extent to which small business performance objectives/requirements are met? | The Offeror shall submit past performance information to demonstrate that it complied with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, for relevant contracts within the past five years. Therefore, submit information that demonstrates this requirement. As stated, copies of contractual reports may be submitted to validate compliance with past performance of FAR 52.219-8. Copies of contractual reports may include, but are not limited to, data from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System such as Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR)/ Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR), Electronic Data Access (EDA) vouchers, Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) reports etc. | |
| As this section is written, the offeror must address all elements of PWS 3.8.2, that includes 3.8.2.1 through 3.8.2.7. These seven subparagraphs all indicate that most of these will be added or addressed via Technical Instruction (TI), Delivery Order (DO), or are actually design and engineering work, which would fall under those specific requirements. The requirement to address the TO process, excluding Design and Engineering Services, is in conflict with subparagraphs 3.8.2.1 through 3.8.2.7. |
| Recommendation: For clarity recommend limiting the TO response requirements in section L to the following; "L.2.2.3.1.iii.1 The Offeror shall describe its approach to the TO process (other than Design & Engineering Services) in detail. The approach shall meet the requirements set forth in PWS 3.8.2.8 through 3.8.2.9 and PWS 3.6, except for Design and Engineering Services (PWS paragraph 3.6(a))." | The USG has updated Attachment 0014 (Section L) to update the following language: "The approach shall meet the requirements set forth in PWS 3.6, except for Design and Engineering Services (PWS paragraph 3.6(a))." | |
| In response to questions dated 2_July_2022 (Q&A Row 100), the Government indicated that they were going to provide a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) with the Final RFP. There is no QASP included in the documentation package for the Final RFP. We recommend the Government provide the QASP to enhance the QAPP, which is a proposal deliverable. (The incumbent has the advantage of incorporating the CHS-5 QASP in their proposal.) | The USG will provide the QASP in amendment #1 on SAM.Gov. | |
| The requirement "handle" in the following Section L language is broad and could be interpreted to encompass the entire supply chain: "The Offeror shall complete one Attachment 0012 for each facility that will handle CHS-6 equipment." We recommend that the Government confirm that this requirement for completion of Attachment 0012 refers to the Offeror and major subcontractors only. |
| The USG has updated this section to state: 4. The Offeror shall complete one Attachment 0012 for each facility that will handle CHS-6 equipment (Contractor and Major subcontracts only). | |
| PWS 4.7.3 includes Table 3 that shows the required data item tables. Attachment 0003 includes a tab for "Configuration Tracker" that does not appear in PWS 4.7.3 Table 3. Request the Government add "Configuration Tracker" to Table 3. | The USG has added Configuration Change Tracker to section 4.7.3 |
| The DoD CCSRG defines the Cloud security model that includes the various Impact Levels (ILs) and relationship with FedRAMP Low/Medium/High baselines. Will the Government confirm that IL-4-CUI (FOUO, PII , PHI) is acceptable for the IDE and Information Portal? | Correct, Impact Level 4 |
| The Attachment 0008 Pricing Spreadsheet requires CLIN pricing of various range quantities, in addition to uplifts, warranty pricing, etc., by year, which creates numerous prices for each CLIN. Since Attachment 0008 is the template for offerors to provide all pricing information, can the Government confirm that offerors are not required to submit pages 3 – 13 of the final solicitation document (the Continuation Sheets of the SF 1449 in the file named "B08 W15P7T-23-R-0001 CHS-6 Solicitation (7 Oct 2022)")? | All offerors are required to propose on the Attachment 0008 spreadsheet. The Offerors are not required to fill out pgs 3 to 13 of the SF1449 Solicitation form. |
| Please clarify if the proposal sections need to be numbered the same as the Factors and Subfactors? For example: does paragraph number in the Proposal Response for Subfactor 1 need to be numbered L.2.2.3.1 or is it sufficient that the paragraph headings contain the L & M references? | Yes, Offeror's proposal shall be paragraphed and numbered consistent with the factors and sub-factors described in Section L, for example; L.2.2.3.1. |
| Can we provide all the required teaming agreements in one, consolidated PDF file? | Yes, you may consolidate into a single file. |
| Section L.2.3.2.3 allows bidders to manipulate significant portions of the Total Evaluated Price by proposing “Brand Name or Equal” items as defined attachment 9. We do not believe the Government can perform a balanced assessment in a fair and reasonable manner against a consistent, detailed standard. We recommend the Government: |
a. Remove L.2.3.2.3, or
| b. Modify the paragraph stating all offerors must bid the listed 14 items. Offerors may propose Brand Name or Equal items meeting the same specifications in addition to the 14 items. This allows the Government to equally evaluate all offerors on the 14 items. | The Government's requirement is Brand Name or Equal. L.2.3.2.3 already says "IAW FAR 52.211-6, Offerors may elect to propose an 'or Equal item(s)' from the items listed in the 'Proposed Material Prices' tab in Attachment 0008" and provides instructions for doing so in accordance with FAR 52.211-6. It is a business decision by an offeror regarding whether they propose Brand Name or Equal. | |
| Block 16 of CDRL A005 states "Delete Requirement 2. Check DID to make sure deleting this requirement is still valid." Request the Government clarify if the "Delete Requirement 2" from the DID is valid. | The USG has reviewed the CDRL and has removed that statement. Requirement 2 is valid. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .