B08_-_Attachment_0009_-_Government_Responses_to_Industry_RFP_Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ITES-SW 2
- Solicitation number
- W52P1J-19-R-0035
About this file
This document provides responses to industry questions regarding solicitation number W52P1J-19-R-0035 for the Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-Software 2 (ITES-SW 2) contract. ITES-SW 2 will support Army, Department of Defense, and federal agency IT goals through commercial software products across 14 categories. Products must be commercial items per FAR 2.101.
The Army seeks proposals for a multiple award IDIQ contract with a five-year base period and five-year option. Awards will be made to all qualifying responsible offerors receiving acceptable ratings for non-cost factors and fair and reasonable prices. The anticipated award date is June 2020. Pricing must be provided for the full base period and option period but will be evaluated only for fair and reasonable determination, as competitive pricing will be determined at the order level. Software as a service models may be offered but pricing flexibility cannot be accommodated.
Revised Attachment 0009 - Government Responses to Industry RFP Questions
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
| Government Responses to Industry RFP Questions (Attachment 0009) for W52P1J-19-R-0035 SET 2 | ||||
| RFP or Other Document SECTION | PARAGRAPH(S) | PAGE(S) | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| Response to Questions | Line # 203 (RFP reference L.10.6.1) | N/A | Section L (L.10.6.1) states "Offerors shall provide the following information for each recent and relevant contract it submits for itself utilizing the form provided in Past Performance References (Attachment 0003). Offeror is limited to two pages per contract reference." The government's Attachment 0003 form is only a single page. Please clarify whether the government will accept an expanded, similarly formatted form for Past Performance references to allow offerors to fully utilize the two page limit. If not, please confirm that the government is indeed requesting offerors to fill in the current .pdf Attachment 3 as is, therefore reducing the page count to only one page. | Attachment 0003 can be expanded to accommodate the two page limit. |
| Response to Questions | Line # 19 -24 | N/A | The government responded to questions on lines 19 - 24 with the following response: "No. Changing the user count does not count as another unique product. Refer to RFP Section L.9.1.1 and Attachment 0001 (SOW) Section 3. Product Catalogs Paragraph 3." Only the question in Line 19 requested clarification on "user count". Would the government please again review lines 20-24 and provide a response? | Changing the user count, term, version of a base product does not constitute a new unique product. |
| "Attachment_0007_-_Priced_Catalog_Template.xls" | Priced Catalog Template | N/A | Will the Government allow bidders to offer discount percentage off of List Price by OEM (rather than a base and option period unit price) since we have no control over List price increases over time? This is similar to how ITES-3H works. | The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. |
| "Attachment_0007_-_Priced_Catalog_Template.xls" | Priced Catalog Template | N/A | Reference Column L - We understand you have stated we can write a narrative explaining how we have calculated option year pricing - however it is almost impossible today for companies to predict pricing in 5 years. Can the government modify this to a discount percentage offering off MSRP? | The Government will not modify this language. The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. |
| Response to Questions | Line 190 (RFP L.4.5) | N/A | The government's response to Line 190 states that the requirement to number and title all paragraphs does not apply to government forms. Please clarify if this requirement is applicable to the cover letter or if only sections are to be numbered and titled. | The cover letter as referenced in RFP Section L.13, Section 1 Executive Summary, does not require paragraphs to be numbered and titled. |
| Response to Questions | Line 197 (RFP L.10.1) | N/A | We do not understand the government's response to whether it is acceptable to submit multiple completed Attachment 003 in one (1) document in PDF format. | It is acceptable to submit more than one of Attachment 0003 in one document, PDF format. |
| Response to Questions | Line 151 (RFP L.10.1) | N/A | The government's response to Line 151 directs back to section L.10.5 which references past performance of parent companies. The question asks if it is acceptable to submit past performance information for subcontractors. Please clarify. | As the question was asked originally , "Will the Government accept past performance references from subcontractors?" The Government will accept past performance references from subcontractors. Please reference RFP Section L.10 As the current question is written, the Government will not accept past performance references for subcontractors, see RFP Section L.10. |
| Response to Questions | Line 198 (RFP L.9.2.3) | N/A | The governments response to Line 198 refers offerors to L.9.2.3 and does not clarify formatting requirements for OEM Written Authorizations. Should offerors organize all OEM written authorization documents into one file, or does the government want all OEM letters to be broken out separately into different files? If the government wants each letter to be broken out into a separate file, please provide a file naming structure that should be used for each file. | Written Authorizations should be provided in separate documents organized by OEM. The Government does not want one large document containing all OEM Written Authorizations. |
| Amendment 0002 | L.10.10 | 13 | Will the Government consider granting an extension to the due date to provide time for offerors to assimilate Questions & Answers feedback into our proposal? | Proposal due date is extended through 02 Oct 2019, 4:30 CST. |
| RFP | General | General | In reference to the answers to questions provided by the government in Amendment 2, the government's clarification of what is considered an acceptable "unique product" has required offerors to review and potentially change the products offerors have been working toward including based on original assumptions. This has added additional burden on potential offerors in being able to submit a complete and compliant catalog with the current RFP due date of September 25, 2019. For this reason, we respectfully request an extension to at least October 16, 2019. | Vendors do not need to remove any products, unless they are out of scope, from catalogs they are currently working to populate. Vendors would only need to add products to catalogs in order to satisfy the depth requirements for the 4 core catalogs (50 unique products) and 4 additional catalogs of the vendor's choosing (25 unique products). The Government will extend the due date to 02 Oct 2019. |
| SOW | 7.3 | 16 | We respectfully request the government to remove this section of Self Audit. The language, as written, goes against every software publisher/OEM standard commercial terms related to audits. As a result, it will be a challenge, if not impossible, to obtain any level of agreement from major software publisher/OEM's regarding this requirement. This may result in software publisher/OEM's not allowing offerors or awardees to sell their product against this contract when other contract vehicles (e.g. GSA Schedules, NASA SEWP, etc.) allows for terms that more closely aligns to standard commercial terms. Rather, per Section 7.6 of the SOW, the government already acknowledges the software publisher/OEM's EULA terms in which paragraph (i) includes audit language. Therefore, we recommend and request that the government remove Section 7.3 and allow for software publisher/OEM's standard commercial language, per FAR 52.212-4, for audit rights. Any language where it violates federal procurement law would be null and void regardless. | The Government's requirement is unchanged. |
| RFP | L.12 | 56 | Can the government please further clarify of its intent of offerors providing a base price and option price for each line item being proposed on its catalog? Are those prices only to be used during the evaluation process to ensure offerors are able to provide reasonable prices to the government, and post-award there will not be catalog level prices? Or will prices be locked in for the entire 5-year base period and entire 5-year option period? If the latter, will the government allow for price adjustments through-out the period of performance? | The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. |
| RFP | L.11 | 55 | Will large business offerors awarded an ITES-SW 2 contract be able to utilize any subcontractor that is qualified to perform services as part of its small business participation plan? Or will offerors be restricted to only those companies they listed on the participation plan? If the latter, will offerors be able to update the participation plan post-award? | Per M.3.3.1, the Government will evaluate whether offerors Small Business Participation Plan demonstrates the offeror's commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. IAW Attachment 0005, offerors are to identify the small businesses by name as part of commitment. |
| RFP | L.9.2.3 | 53 | In response to a question on L.9.2.3, the Army states "Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3 and Attachment 0001 (SOW) Page 6 Item (4). The Offeror must be able to demonstrate that the written authorization is active and not expired. The Government does not expect vendors to list every individual product they are authorized to resell. If a company has the ability to sell all products from one OEM/Publisher/Distributor, the documentation should state this. However, if a company is only authorized to sell a particular product line from one OEM/Publisher/Distributor, this needs to be specified." The government has not revised the language of L.9.2.3 in Amendment 0002, however, and it still states that we have to be product specific. |
| Please confirm that LOAs stating the Offeror is authorized to act as a reseller of "OEM Z's" products is sufficient and revise the RFP language accordingly. | It is sufficient for a Written Authorization document to state an Offeror has the ability to act as a reseller of a particular OEM's products. | ||
| Q&A row 187 | Q&A row 187 states that the 500-employee nonmanufacturer rule size standard applies to orders that are set-aside for small business. If an offeror qualifies as small under this 500-employee size standard, but not the revenue-based size standard otherwise applicable to NAICS 511210, is it required to submit a small business subcontracting plan as part of its offer? | This question relates to the IDIQ order level after any resultant award(s). The same response is provided under Amendment 0001. In the event an order is set-aside for small businesses, the |
Individual Waiver to the Nonmanufacturer Rule is applicable. If a Nonmanufacturer, you will be governed by the 500 employee size standard.
| SF 1449, Section L.13.2.1.7 | Contractor Teaming Arrangements IAW FAR 9.6. Provide documentation identifying full disclosure of arrangement and company | ||||
| relationships. This must include all pertinent information necessary to understand any and all relationships. | Page 57 | Does the Government want copies of the bidder's Teaming Agreements with its small business Subcontractors included with our submission? | If applicable, and as referenced in RFP Volume 5 - Contract Proposal/L.13.2 Section 2-Contractual Documents/L.13.2.1.7, provide any Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) in accordance with FAR 9.6. CTAs are part of Volume 5 Contract Proposal and will not be evaluated as part of Section M. | ||
| L.9.1.1 | 1st | 52 | How does the government define a software plug-in? How will they be determining what is/what is not considered a plug-in vs. a unique product? | Plug-ins are software components that add features/capability to an existing product. Plug-ins are not unique products; they are enhancements for existing products. | |
| L.9.1.1 | 2nd | 52 | To use an example, Microsoft Office Pro and Office Standard are two unique products with two unique (yet in some ways overlapping) feature sets. The Pro version is not an add-on/plug-in. Would they be deemed a single unique product? | Microsoft Office is Microsoft Office, regardless of if it is identified as Pro or Standard. Changing the user count, term or version of a base product does not constitute a new unique product. Vendors may offer these variations of Microsoft Office on their catalogs but it will not count toward the depth requirements. | |
| Amendment 0002 Q&A, Row 144; RFP | L.3.4 | We understand that submissions must be received on CD-ROM/DVD at the U.S. Army Contracting Command - Rock Island only. However, will the government accept hand delivery of the CD-ROM/DVD submission at Rock Island instead of a mailed submission? If not, please define/clarify "mail" and whether a mail/delivery service of the Offeror's choice is acceptable. | Hand delivery is not acceptable. RFP Section L.3.2.3.2 Electronic Proposals (CD-ROM/DVD) shall be mailed to the address below: |
U.S. Army Contracting Command- Rock Island ATTN: CCRC-TA/ Chase P. Holliday Building 62 3rd Floor 3055 Rodman Avenue Rock Island, IL 61299-8000
| Amendment 0002 Q&A; RFP L.10.8 | Q&A, Row 184 | In response to the question on Row 184 in Amendment 0002 Q&A, the government states that there is no requirement for placement of adverse past performance in Volume 2, although Volume 2 is the Past Performance Volume. If not Volume 2, with which volume (Volumes 1 - 5) should this information be included? Attachment 0003 is included in Volume 2 - Past Performance, but provides no place in the form to provide adverse past performance information and is limited to only 2 pages. Please clarify the volume, format and naming convention if a separate document should be created for this information. We respectfully request direct guidance rather than being referred back to RFP Section L.10.8, as it does not provide instructions on this. | Adverse Past Performance shall be provided in Volume 2. Reference RFP Section L.10.8 Adverse Past Performance. Offerors shall provide the following information for all recent and relevant contracts, including the recent and relevant contracts provided in L.10.6.1, which encountered any performance problems. There is no page limit. File Format- PDF; Naming Convention: Offeror Name/Adverse Past Performance | |
| L.10.10 | 1 | 54 | L.10.10 says "Offerors shall complete and submit a Performance Assessment Questionnaire (Attachment 0004), for each contract identified in Attachment 0003 entitled Past Performance References. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Performance Assessment |
Questionnaire and to the POC(s) identified in Lines 15 through 17 of Past Performance References. Offerors shall instruct the POC(s) to electronically complete Part II of the Performance References Questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date of 16 September 2019."
| Please confirm it is acceptable that one questionnaire (Attachment 4) per contract being identified in Attachment 3 is submitted by the due date of this proposal. | In accordance with RFP Section L.10.1 Offerors shall submit past performance information utilizing Past Performance References (Attachment 0003) on up to 5 recent and relevant contracts for itself. Therefore, "up to 5 recent and relevant contracts for itself" is acceptable. | ||
| Question 31,59,85,146,196 from Amendment 2 | Column E - Answer | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 1.b. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf. |
| In the answer to question on row 196 of Amendment 2 - it states that the 'written authorizations must be in separate documents. - So the previous answers seem to indicate a single file called 'ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf' but the answer to question on row 196 seems to contradict previous answer. -- Please clarify if this is a single file with each individual Letter of Authorization/Supply included, or if there should be a separate Letter of Authorization/Supply file for each Manufacturer. -- If there should be separate files, please clarify the preferred naming convention | RFP L.7.2 Volume 1 is broken out by 1.a. and 1.b. These are 2 separate documents. The filing convention for 1.b. is "Offeror-WA-OEM NAME-SW2.PDF" | ||
| Question 167, 181, 209 from Amendment 2 | Column E - Answer | "Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Appendix G (Glossary) 1.20. Cloud is not part of this opportunity. Software as a Service is considered a license delivery model on this contract. |
Cloud computing/cloud hosting is covered under ACCENT as the Army’s main contract. Any offering that would require a FedRAMP security assessment would NOT be in scope. SaaS, as a delivery method/licensing model for software would be considered in scope on the ITES-SW 2 contract."
| NIST 800-145 defines Software as a Service (SaaS) as one of three Service Models for Cloud Computing. - Even in Appendix G (Glossary) of Attachment 0001 it states "SaaS" means “Software as a Service”, the software delivery model in which Vendor Software is hosted by Vendor or a qualified third party and the Customer is granted access to the Software functionality and capabilities under a Subscription Agreement. Any multi-tenant SaaS offering by this definition offered would require FedRAMP. Is the Army only looking for single-tenant solutions? | When the Government says "cloud" is not part of ITES-SW2, it means commercial cloud hosting services, like those within scope of the ACCENT or ITES-3S contract vehicles. For clarity, software offered under ITES-SW2 may be offered via a delivery method or licensing model that allows a customer to access software applications on-demand, via the internet and/or a web browser. | ||||
| B08_-W52P1J19R0035-0002.pdf - L.12.3 | 1 | 14 | The base period of the contract is 5 years. Most manufacturer's price points will change over those 5 years based on the market. Are the prices to be provided only to allow a contract officer to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism and are these prices allowed to change over the base 5 years as manufacturers change their prices? | The pricing model will not be changed. The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. | |
| B08_-W52P1J19R0035-0002.pdf - L.12.3 | 1 | 14 | As a manufacturer's pricing is expected to change over the initial base contract period of 5 years -- and will most definitely change over the entire 10 year period of this contract. Are the prices in the options years intended to be the price for that SKU for the duration of the option periods? | The pricing model will not be changed. The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. | |
| B08_-W52P1J19R0035-0002.pdf - L.12.3 | 1 | 14 | As a manufacturer's pricing is expected to change over the initial base contract period of 5 years -- and will most definitely change over the entire 10 year period of this contract. We ask the Army to consider allowing an offeror to propose a minimum discount off a manufacturer's commercial list price for both the base period and the option period. This would provide the Army and users of ITES-SW2 an immediate built in discount, regardless of product. |
| The pricing model will not be changed. The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. | |||||
| B08_-W52P1J19R0035-0002.pdf - L.12.3 | 1 | 14 | Some manufacturers require an annual uplift on prices. Can an offeror break out the Base Period and provide pricing for each individual Base Period year? | The offeror cannot break out the base period and provide pricing for each individual base period. The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. | |
| B08_-_Attachment_0001_-_ITES-SW_2_SOW.pdf | 3. Product Catalogs | ||||
| ...Examples of delivery methods and licensing models include but are not limited to Perpetual, Subscription and Software-as-a-Service. | 3 | In response to Q&A #209, SaaS is considered in scope for this contract. To show this type of licensing model in Attachment 0007 - Priced Catalog Template, what is the metric for pricing SaaS offerings? |
Currently the government allows only one price per unit for the entire 5 year base period and one price per unit for the entire 5 year option period for an as a service. Software as a Service licensing models generally are not priced in one 5 year period of performance.
| Will the government adjust the pricing model to reflect different period of performance options? | The pricing model will not be changed. The proposed prices for the base period and the option period are being evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable at the time of evaluation. Upon any resultant award(s), competitive pricing will be determined at the delivery order level. | |||
| B08_-_Attachment_0001_-_ITES-SW_2_SOW.pdf | 5.5. Warranty and Warranty Variations | 10 | The answer to Q&A #95 states "The 90 days will begin on the date the customer accesses the software." |
Industry defines "access" as upon product delivery to the customer in accordance with the order shipment/electronic delivery instructions.
| Please confirm government concurrence. | The Government's requirement is unchanged. | ||
| B08_-_W52P1J19R0035-0002.pdf | |||
| L.13.2.1.1 SF1449 | 15 | In response to Q&A #14 regarding SF1449 volume placement, the naming convention in RFP L.7.2 alludes to the government wanting one document only for all responses to Volume 5 requirements. Therefore, bidder understands that all forms and attachments are to be bundled within one PDF document titled "ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf." |
| If this is not the government's intention, please identify the naming convention for each separate document requested within a volume. | RFP Volume 5 Contract Proposal contains Section 1 and Section 2. All required information within Section 1 and Section 2 shall be submitted under Volume 5. "Offeror shall replace the word "Catalog" with the appropriate volume title; e.g., "ABC Company-Contract-ITES-SW2.pdf" | ||||
| ITES-SW_2_(W52P1J-19-R-0035)_RFP.pdf | |||||
| Section I Contract Clauses | |||||
| 32 252.216-7006 ORDERING | 19 | In response to Q&A #4 regarding decentralized ordering, will the Government consider developing a recommended ordering boilerplate to the ordering offices for consistency to support quick turns on RFQ responses? | Upon execution of any award, an ordering guide will be developed by the Government to assist in the ordering procedure. However, boilerplate language will not be part of the guide. | ||
| RFP | L.7.2 | 11 | The File Naming Structure for the proposal volumes contained in Table 1.0 (L.7.2) does not differentiate between various volumes titles (i.e., all file names contain "ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2"). Please provide unique file names for each volume. | "Offeror shall replace the word "Catalog" with the appropriate volume title; e.g., "ABC Company-Past Performance-ITES-SW2.pdf" | |
| RFP | L.11.4.4; 11.4.5; L.11.5.3; L.7.2 | 14 | Paragraphs L.11.4.4 and L.11.5.3 require a file naming convention different from that contained in Table 1.0 (L.7.2) for Volume 3. Para L.11.4.5 also requires a File Format of MS Word. This appears to conflict with Table 1.0 (L.7.2). Please clarify the file naming convention and file format for all Volume 3 files. | L.7.2 File Naming Structure shall include L.11.4.4. Naming Convention (Offeror's Name/Volume/Attachment 0005) and L.11.5.3 Naming Convention (Offeror's Name/Volume/Commitment) as written in those sections. L.11.4.5 states MS Word. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .