Final_Questions_and_Answers_from_Industry_Attachment_0010_4_19_2017.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Amendment to Synposis and Extension of Due Date
- Solicitation number
- W31P4Q-16-R-0010
About this file
Final Questions and Answers- Updated Attachment 0010 4/19/2017
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W31P4Q16R0010-0008.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| 4/19/17 | Respondant | Document Para #: | Document: | Question/Comment: | Recommendation: | Rationale/Impact: | Government Response: |
| 0 | ACC-RSA | ||||||
| 1 | KORD #1 | Section L, paragraph L.2.c, L.2.e, response to questions, question 4, and other references. |
Eddie: Eddie:
Tiff, I don't see a L.2.e The various references above provide guidance on what the Government includes in the page count limitation and what isn’t included. For example, resumes do count against the pages count, lists of tables and figures (not the tables and figures themselves) do not count against the page count, and manpower charts do not count against the page count. To ensure compliance, will the Government clarify the following: 1 - Cover pages and tables of contents are or are not included in the page counts? 2 – Employee letters of commitment are or are not included in the page counts? 3 – Subcontractor letters of commitment and subcontractor letters of intent are or are not included in the page counts? 1 - Cover pages and tables of contents are included in the page counts. 2 – Employee letters of commitment are included in the page counts. 3 – Subcontractor letters of commitment and subcontractor letters of intent are included in the page counts. The RFP does not include a L.2.e.
Eddie: Eddie:
I would make clear by putting the ARE in the sentence and not at the end. Remove "are not" 2 KORD #2 Section A, page 2, paragraph A-3 2. The second to the last sentence includes the statement “…see attachment 0008”. Is the Government referencing file name “ENCL_8_-_Base_Engineering_Services_Memorandum.docx” as “attachment 0008”?
Eddie: Eddie:
Where did you use the word ENCL? Whereever you used ENCL needs to be changes to the approporiate Attachment number. Yes, the Gov't is referencing “ENCL_8_-_Base_Engineering_Services_Memorandum.docx” as “attachment 0008” Eddie: Eddie:
Again, this is an RFP attachment and should not be titled an ENCL.
3 KORD #3 Section A, page 3, paragraph A-5, page 4, paragraph A-8 and Section C, paragraph C-2, Attachment 0001, and Section J, Attachment 0001 and others. The Government references “…attachment 0001” multiple times, but the file provided that best corresponds to the content is named “ENCL_1_-TSHS_SOW_MAR07.pdf”. In addition, the Government states in multiple locations in the RFP that Attachment 0001 is dated 6 March 2017. The date on the cover page of “ENCL_1_-TSHS_SOW_MAR07.pdf” is 9 March 2017. Please clarify if “attachment 0001” is “ENCL_1_-TSHS_SOW_MAR07.pdf” and if the correct date is 9 March 2017.
Eddie: Eddie:
| Same comment as above, remove ENCL and use Attachment. | “ENCL_1_-TSHS_SOW_MAR07.pdf”, "Attachment 0001" are both the same document. Document will be corrected in an amendment to reflect the correct date of 9 Mar 2017. | ||||
| 4 | KORD #4 | The file referenced in Section C, paragraph C-2 and in multiple other locations as “Attachment 0002” was provided as part of the Draft RFP dated 23 Janaury 2017 as “0002-_Document_Summary_List_updated_Oct_2015.pdf”. | File “0002-_Document_Summary_List_updated_Oct_2015.pdf” will not open. We have attempted to open it on multiple computers using multiple versions of Adobe Acrobat. Instead of opening the file, an Adobe Acrobat “window” appears that states “Adobe Acrobat DC could not open ‘0002-_Document_Summary_List_updated_Oct_2015.pdf’ because it is either not a supported file type or because the file have been damaged (for example, it was sent as an email attachment and wasn’t correctly decoded).” | If the contractor is having trouble opening Attachment 0002 "Document_Summary_List", it will be re-sent upon reciept of any industry email request sent to the Contract Specialist. | |
| 5 | KORD #5 | Section H, page 21, paragraph 11. | The last bullet in this paragraph states “AMCOM will in no way be held responsible for denied VISA for foreign nationals applying to enter the United States of America.” The only other references to AMCOM the RFP reference AMCOM’s Safety Office. |
Is this statement included due to an oversight? If so, will the Government delete it. If is included intentionally, what is its purpose and are there other AMCOM roles and responsibilities relevant to the TSHS contractor?
The last bullet in this paragraph states “AMCOM will in no way be held responsible for denied VISA for foreign nationals applying to enter the United States of America.” is deleted.
Eddie: Eddie:
Is this really your answere, "can be deleted.??
6 KORD #6 Section L, paragraph L.3 (2) Volume II Past Performance, subparagraph i (e ) which requires the offeror to provide the “Government contract administration activities Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.” Please clarify the Government’s intent for this information? Is this redundant to the COR, PCO, ACO? There is no reference to the title or duty “pre-award monitor” in our contracts. The Pre-Award monitor is the current POC that will provide past performance information. Its usually the current COR on the contract. This section should be completed by the POC providing past performance information. However, all offerors have the opportunity to include past performance questionnaires with the proposals to be submitted on April 28, 2017.
Eddie: Eddie:
Tiff is the POC doing a review or providing past performance information?
| 7 | KORD #7 | Section L, paragraph L.3 (2) Volume II Past Performance, subparagraph v on page 36 describes what offerors must include in their Past Performance questionnaire. | Subparagraph v atates, “The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).” Please describe what information the Government intends for offerors to put in the “Solicitation Number” cell as compared to what the Government is looking for in the “Contract Number” cell. Are these redundant or does the Government want us to go back, in some cases many years, to try to find the original solicitation number that eventually led to an awarded contract #? | In accordance with (IAW) Section L, (2) Volume II Past Performance, page 35, the questionaires should only include information on contracts awarded in the past 3 years, therefore providing the solicitation numbers should not pose a burden for offerors interested in participating in the TSHS competition. Please list the contract number for all efforts that are relevant to the TSHS effort. If the solicitation number is known, please include this information. If the solicitation number is not known, at minimum a contract number should be provided for the review. However, all offerors have the opportunity to include past performance questionnaires with the proposals to be submitted on April 28, 2017. |
| 8 | KORD #8 | Section A, paragraph 7, page 3 and Section L, paragraph L.3 (2) Volume II Past Performance, subparagraph v on page 36. | Referencing the Past Performance Questionnaire, subparagraph v states, “For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date…” . Paragraph 7 on page 3 of section A states “…the entire Past Performance Questionnaire shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer, eddie.m.whitfield.civ@mail.mil and Contract Specialist, tiffany.n.childress.civ@mail.mil, no later than 14 April 2017…”. These two requirements seem to be contradictory and create confusion. The offeror cannot control the actions of the POCs we send/sent the Past Performance questionnaires to, yet the instructions require offerors to submit the “…entire Past Performance Questionnaire…”. Does the Government mean for the offeror to submit the past performance questionnaires with Part I completed to the “…Contracting Officer, eddie.m.whitfield.civ@mail.mil and Contract Specialist, tiffany.n.childress.civ@mail.mil, no later than 14 April 2017…”? If not, please clarify the Government’s expectations in regards to submitting tne “…entire…” Past Performance information on 14 April 2017. | All past performance questionnaires are to be completed by the POC for each contract submitted by the offerors for evaluation under the Past Performance Evaluation Factor. Each POC should have already submitted the complete questionnaire to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist by 14 April 2017. However, all offerors have the opportunity to include past performance questionnaires with the proposals to be submitted on April 28, 2017. |
| 9 | KORD #9 | Section A, paragraph 7, page 3. | Paragraph 7 on page 3 of section A includes the statement “Unless there are changes to the previous submitted past performance questionnaires or a vendor has not previously submitted a questionnaire…”. Is it the Government’s intent to allow offeror’s to include additional past performance citations (in accordance with other instructions contained it the RFP) for themselves or their subcontractors that were not included in the submissions provided to the Government on 13 February? | It is the Govt's intent to allow all offerors to make any necessary changes to the Past Performance submissions including additional inquiries or allow a offeror who has not submitted Past Performance information to submit questionaires by the Past Performance deadline of 14 April 2017. However, all offerors have the opportunity to include past performance questionnaires with the proposals to be submitted on April 28, 2017. |
| 10 | KORD #10 | Section L, Paragraph 3 d (2), page 36 describes requirements for the Past Performance volume. | Subparagraph iv discusses new coroporate entities and includes the statement “Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.” It is our understanding that any letters of commitment for a potential employee for this section are only associated with an offeror who is submitting a proposal as a “new corprorate entity”, not a well established business with a strong record of past performance relevant to the TSHS requirement. Please verify that the letters of commitment required by the reference above are separate and distinct from any “key employee” letters of commitment required in Volume I and are only required for a “new corporate entity”. | Offerors should provide separate and distinct commitment letters for "new corporate entities". Letters of commitment are required for key personnel stated Section L , paragraph iii (e) page 34. |
Eddie: Eddie:
Tiff: Your response doesn't really answer the question on whether letters of commitment under the New Corporate Entities paragraph are separate and different from the letters of commitment for the Technical Factor. Please re-write.
Eddie: Eddie:
Tiff, I don't see a L.2.e Eddie: Eddie:
Are we leaving this column blank?
Eddie: Eddie:
Where did you use the word ENCL? Whereever you used ENCL needs to be changes to the approporiate Attachment number.
Eddie: Eddie:
Same comment as above, remove ENCL and use Attachment.
Eddie: Eddie:
I would make clear by putting the ARE in the sentence and not at the end. Remove "are not" Eddie: Eddie:
Again, this is an RFP attachment and should not be titled an ENCL.
Eddie: Eddie:
Is this really your answere, "can be deleted.??
Eddie: Eddie:
| Tiff is the POC doing a review or providing past performance information? | 11 | TRIDEUM | Paragraph 7 on page 3/47 of Solicitation # W31P4Q-16-R-0010 | Unless there are changes to the previous submitted past performance questionnaires or a vendor has not previously submitted a questionnaire, the entire Past Performance Questionnaire shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer, eddie.m.whitfield.civ@mail.mil and the Contract Specialist a list of all the POC's who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than 14 April 2017. | If the offeror has previously submitted Past Performance questionnaires and there are no changes or added inquires, the offeror DOES NOT need to re-submit. |
| 12 | KORD #11 | Section B, CLIN structure, CLINs 0011, 0012, and 0013, and Section L, Paragraph 3 (1) iii (b) on page 34 references labor mix. | CLINS 0011, 0012, and 0013 refer to Engineering Services, Data Base Mgmt Services, and Technical Admin Support” respectively. Subparagraph iii states, “The following information concerning labor shall be provided”, then subparagraph (b) states “The labor mix for engineering and administrative and also the labor mix (i.e. job categories and hours assumed) for the engineering and Informational Assurance services.” Subparagraph iii states the Government wants offerors to provide information in the successive subparagraphs, including those in (b), but the requirements of (b) are not clear. The Government wants the labor mix for “engineering and administrative” and then “for the engineering and Informational services, but the CLIN structure does not include “administrative” and “Informational services”. Did the Government actually intend for L.3.(1)iii(b) to state “The labor mix (i.e. job categories and hours assumed) for the engineering, database management, and Technical Admin Support services”? | Please see the revised CLIN titles: CLIN 0011 Engineering service labor catagories; CLIN 0012 Data base management/infor assurance labor catagories; CLIN 0013 Technical and Admin support labor catagories | |
| 13 | KORD #12 | Section L, on page 40, III. Rate Tables | In the third paragraph down the RFP states, “The offeror shall also provide the proposed staffing level by identifying the total number of personnel proposed for each labor category and the total number of personnel to perform the requirements of the PWS. In addition, the offeror shall provide a crosswalk of offerors labor categories to the RFP specified labor categories. A sample labor category crosswalk is provided as an RFP Attachment.” There is an Appendix A “Target Systems Hardware and Support Labor Category Listings” as part of the SOW, but we have not be able to find the “sample labor catetory crosswalk” provided as an RFP Attachment. How is this document labeled in the RFP ‘package’? Is it a separate attachment or is it imbedded as part of another document? If this document was not included with the solicitation, please provide as soon as possible. | The "sample labor category crosswalk" has been added to Amendment 0008 as Attachment 0011. | |
| 14 | TRIDEUM | FBO.gov lists SF30s for Amendments 0001 (dated 2016FEB29), 0002 (dated 2016MAR24), 0003 (dated 2016JUN27), 0006 (dated 2017JAN23), and 0007 (dated 2017APR04). Amendments 0004 and 0005 were posted without SF30s. | Are there SF30s for Amendments 0004 and 0005? | Offerors should submit SF30's for all RFP amendments. Each vendor should use the SF30s currently in the FBO system. | |
| 15 | TRIDEUM | In the last draft, all ESM language was removed and replaced with Task Order language. In the final RFP, the ESM language was added at the end of the PWS (SOW 3.3) but the TO language was left in place. | Will ESM/SubESMs be the guiding language used in the Task Orders to provide contractor tasking? | Yes, once the contract is awarded, each individual task order will be issued based on the contractor's proposal submission per an Engineering Service Memorandum (ESM). | |
| 16 | TRIDEUM | The BASE ESM information supplied references Aerial Targets and not TSHS (ENCL_8 (Paragraph 9, SOW 3.2.2.1.4.1 & SOW 3.2.2.1.4.4). | Should Aerial Targets be replaced with TSHS in the Base ESM? | No, the ESM attachment is just a sample and the language will be revised once the contract is awarded. | |
| 17 | TRIDEUM | Is the labor to be priced for COST Volume CLINS 0011, 0012, and 0013 based on the labor mix that the contractor is to provide in Vol I (Tech/Man) iii.(b)? | Yes, labor is to be priced for cost on CLINS 0011, 0012, and 0013 based on the labor mix that the contractor is to provide in Vol I (Tech/Man) iii.(b). | ||
| 18 | TRIDEUM | Does the government have a preferred format to receive the pricing data in the cost volume for CLINS 0011, 0012, 0013? | The Goverrnment does not have a preferred format. However, CLINs 0011,0012, and 0013 should be formatted in accordance with the CLIN structure and Section L and M Cost Sections. | ||
| 19 | TRIDEUM | Reference VOL III Small Business Participation Instructions L (3) i. “Of the proposed TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE, not total subcontract value, identify the proposed dollar value and percentage of anticipated awards to small business. All percentages should use TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE as a baseline”. It is unreasonable to project small business participation of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE without the government providing a breakdown of requirements over the life of the contract of CLINS 0002 and 0003. | Recommend the government change the wording of L (3) i. to read “TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE of CLINs 0011, 0012, and 0013”. | Section L (3)(i) will remain unchanged. | |
| 20 | TRIDEUM | Reference Volume II Past Performance, L (2) iii: the RFP defines a major subcontractor as: “This includes all |
subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the total proposed price”. It is unreasonable to project 10% of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE without the government providing a breakdown of requirements over the life of the contract of CLINS 0002 and 0003. Recommend the government change the wording of L (2) iii. to read “This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE of CLINs 0011, 0012, and 0013”. Se+A21:H22ction L (2) will remain unchanged.
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| 6 |
| 7 |
| 8 |
| 9 |
| 10 |
| 11 |
| 12 |
| 13 |
| 14 |
| 15 |
| 16 |
| 17 |
| 18 |
| 19 |
| 20 |
| 21 |
| 22 |
| 23 |
| 24 |
| 25 |
| 26 |
| 27 |
| 28 |
| 29 |
| 30 |
| 31 |
| 32 |
| 33 |
| 34 |
| 35 |
| 36 |
| 37 |
| 38 |
| 39 |
| 40 |
| 41 |
| 42 |
| 43 |
| 44 |
| 45 |
| 46 |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .