B08_-_Attachment_0009_-_Government_Responses_to_Industry_RFP_Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 52 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ITES-SW 2
- Solicitation number
- W52P1J-19-R-0035
About this file
This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits proposals for the Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-Software 2 (ITES-SW 2) contract. ITES-SW 2 will provide commercial off-the-shelf software products and related incidental services across 14 categories to support Army, Department of Defense, and federal agency IT goals. Offerors must propose products in at least four core categories and may propose additional categories. The Army will award this multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract to all offerors receiving acceptable ratings in technical, past performance, and small business factors and fair and reasonable proposed pricing. The ordering period will be ten years total, including a five-year base and five-year option. The Army anticipates making awards in June 2020 and seeks proposals by September 25, 2019.
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 Offeror's RFIs (Attachment 0009) for W52P1J-19-R-0035
| RFP or Other Document SECTION | PARAGRAPH(S) | PAGE(S) | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| Contract Clauses | 32 | 19 | Will order solicitations under this IDIQ be released to awardees by brand name, generic description, or both? |
For example will they issue task orders for “FedRamped CRM solution” or will they list a specific brand name such as Salesforce?
| Ordering is decentralized; therefore, this will be determined by the ordering office. | ||||
| Executive Summary | 4 | 2 | If there are a sufficient number of small business awardees for this IDIQ that can address most of the 14 areas, then will most order solicitations released under this IDIQ be small business set asides? | Ordering is decentralized; therefore, this will be determined by the ordering office. |
| Executive Summary | 4 | 2 | What if a software manufacturer that we propose in one of the 14 categories is not on any GSA schedule, are we allowed to propose those product manufacturers' SW products? | There is no requirement for a software manufacturer's products to be on a GSA Schedule contract. |
| W52P1J-19-R-0035 Sec #3 | 3.4 | 4 | Is the Data Base z/OS? ACF2? RACF? TS? z/Linux? | "Catalog 4 - Database, Data Integration & Big Data" |
may include any Database software.
| W52P1J-19-R-0035 Sec #3 | 3.11 | 4 | What OS? z/OS? Mainframe? z/Linux? | Catalog 11 – Operating Systems may include any operating system. |
| L.9.1.1 | 1st | 52 | Please provide additional clarification on what is considered a 'unique product'. - For example a Product called Acme Portal may have multiple plugins that provide different functionality. i.e. Acme Portal Collaboration, Acme Portal Messaging, Acme Portal Wiki, etc. and each Plugin has a unique SKU. Acme Portal can be sold with none, one, some, or all of these Plugins. As these plugins provide different functionality, would they each be considered a 'unique product'? | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (Statement of Work) page 3 paragraph 3 (Product Catalogs). Depth cannot be satisfied by listing a base software multiple times with various different plugins. |
| L.9.1.1 | 1st | 52 | Please provide additional clarification / definition on a product being 'sold multiple ways'. - For example, Acme Portal can be purchased with 20 Users, 50 Users, and Unlimited Users. -- We consider this to be an example of 'the same product sold multiple ways'. However, as per the previous question - Acme Portal can be purchased with different Plugins, and the purchase of the Portal with each of those plug-ins would be considered a 'unique' product as there is different functionality being provided. | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (Statement of Work) page 3 paragraph 3 (Product Catalogs). Depth cannot be satisfied by listing a base software multiple times with various different plugins. |
| L.6.1 / L.7.2 | 1st | 51/52 | Please confirm that you expect to receive 10 total CD/DVDs. One CD/DVD Per Volume and 2 Copies of Each volume. 2 copies * 5 volumes = 10 CD/DVDs. | Reference RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "CD-ROM Submission" 2 copies of each volume is required. |
| L.9.2.3 | 1st | 53 | Please confirm that a Letter of Supply from a Manufacture,Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)/publisher/distributor does not have to specifically list each individual product SKU # (which could be hundreds), but can provide a blanket statement that a company is authorized to sell their catalog of software |
Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3 and Attachment 0001 (SOW 3.16(b)(4).
| L.12.1 / L.12.3 | 1st | 55 | In L.12.1 it states '...cost or pricing data is not required to be submitted with the proposal.' Then in L.12.3 it states 'The Offeror shall include a price, in U.S. Dollars rounded to the nearest dollar, for each item proposed for the base period andoption period.' -- Please clarify whether pricing data is required. | Per FAR Part 2 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data means "pricing data, cost data, and judgmental information necessary for the contracting officer to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism. Such data may include the identical types of data as certified cost or pricing data, consistent with Table 15-2 of 15.408, but without the certification..". While prices need to be proposed in the pricing matrix, Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to support the prices proposed does not need to be submitted with the Offerors proposal |
| L.13.2.1.1 | 1st | 56 | Can the Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449) be provided as a seperate stand alone document, or does it need to be included with the rest of the Volume 5 information within a single document? | Reference RFP Section L.13.2.1. The Offeror shall submit the following: L.13.2.1.1. Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449), Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items - The offeror shall appropriately complete and return the SF1449, signed by a duly authorized individual. |
| L.13.2.1.5 | 1st | 56 | Can we use the SAM Report for Reps/Certs for 52.212-3? | Reference RFP Section L.13.2.1. The Offeror shall submit the following: L.13.2.1.5 FAR Provision 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items (Alternate I)- The Offeror shall return a completed copy of the representations and certifications. In accordance with FAR 52.212-3 OFFERORS REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) --ALTERNATE I (OCT 2014), "The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov ." |
| SOW 2.0 | 3rd | 2 | As the Army maintains the current list of active CoNs and successful RMF reviews can you please provide the current list so we can validate our records match what the Army believes to be true? | NETCOM owns the CoN and RMF Process. For the purposes of the this evaluation the CoN and RMF columns of RFP Attachment 0002 (Catalog Template) will not be evaluated per RFP Section L.9.2. |
Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Section 1. Introduction, The Government will provide a CoN list to vendors quarterly as long as it remains actively maintained by NETCOM.
SOW 7.3 Self-Audit 16 We are conceptually aligned with the intent of this paragraph – but seek clarification that this limitation of liability shall not apply to other license restrictions, such as reverse engineering, modification etc., but only to limit liability flowing from exceeding the number of authorized users. In light of this please see below for our proposed changes (in red) to the clause.
| PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES - ITES-SW 2 SOW, section 7.3, titled “Self-Audit” The Government Customer agrees it will perform an internal audit of Software quantities in use not more than once a year and will use its best efforts to keep full and accurate accounts that may be used to properly ascertain and verify numbers of licenses and authorized use. Upon the Contractor’s written request, the customer may provide audit reports to the Contractor from the customer’s internal audit records not more than once a year as the sole means of satisfying the Contractor’s requests for audit. If the customer becomes aware of any unauthorized use of the Software in excess of the number of authorized the software licenses or users (“Excessive Use”), the customer will notify the Contractor. The limit of the customer’s responsibility for any Excessive Use unauthorized use of products by any individuals employed by or performing services for the customer is the requirement that the customer purchase additional licenses for the products through the Contractor at fair market value, to the extent permitted by 31 U.S.C. 1341 (Anti-Deficiency Act) and other applicable Federal law. Upon mutual agreement of the parties, if the Contractor requests the audit, the customer may determine if a self-audit or another audit arrangement is appropriate. Nothing in this section is intended to obviate or limit any liability of Customer for breach of any Contractor Software license restrictions other than for Excessive Use. | The Government requirement remains unchanged. | ||||
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product A and Product B are sold separately, but are also sold under a suite as product C. Which are the "unique products" and how many of the above ( Product A , B and/or C) unique products can offeror set forth? | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) page 3 paragraph 3. A suite is one unique product. Each product in the suite can also be offered once as a unique product. | |
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product D is sold by the user count and available at 1 or 10 users. Is this considered two unique products? | 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. | |
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product E is sold in a one year or two year terms. Is this considered two unique products? | 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. | |
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product F is an upgrade to product A. It is sold seperately, but only available if product A has already been purchased. Is this considered an unique product? | 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. | |
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product G has different versions based on the year it was released ( i.e Product G 2016 and Product G 2019). Both products are still available. Is this considered two unique products? | 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. | |
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product H has a version for Windows and a version for Mac. Is this considered two unique products? | 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. | |
| SOW 3.0 | 3 | 3 | Please clarify the definition of a unique product. Product I has a "Basic" and a "Pro" version, is this considered two unique products? | 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. | |
| SOW Product Catalog 1 | 2 | 20 | Is the intent of "Plug-ins" being listed in the section to capture all "plug-ins" regardless of the category the software would fall into? For example, what catalog would a plug in for a Project management software go in? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.1.The offeror shall select the most appropriate catalog if the product could fit in multiple catalogs. | |
| RFP | L.9.2.3 | 53 | Please confirm that a written authorization provided by an OEM for a named tier one subcontractor will meet this requirement on a Prime's response. | Yes | |
| RFP | L.9.2.3 | 53 | Some OEMs do not have a formal authorization process, or do not provide bid specfic letters. Is a document (screenshot, certification etc) that verifies the offerors current status with an OEM acceptable? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. The documentation should clearly indicate what brand and/or product lines are authorized to be sold by the prime vendor, this would be acceptable. Bottom line is that the prime vendor MUST be authorized by the OEM/Publisher/Distributor to sell the products offered on catalog. Must meet requirement as stated in section L.9.2.3 | |
| RFP | L.11 | 54 | Please confirm that a small business that qualifies under the NMR waiver does not have to submit a small buisness participation plan. | Refer to RFP Section L.11, Small Business Offerors do not have to submit a Small Business Participation Plan. | |
| RFP | M.3.4.2 | 61 | Please clarify the process of determining price reasonableness. The current criteria assumes that all offerors will provide the exact same products. The concern is that a random sampling will provide no basis of comparison if diverse products are offered. | Refer to RFP Section M.3.4.2. Items pulled in the random sample will first be compared to the other Offerors to determine if reasonableness can be determined based on competition. If an item cannot be determined reasonable based on competition, the Government will use data available within the Government (e.g. pricing history) to determine reasonableness. If not data exists within the Government to determine reasonableness, data other than certified cost and pricing data (i.e. commercial sales data) will be requested. | |
| RFP | 14 | 52.219-14 | As a waiver applies, should this clause be checked? | As stated in RFP Section A, FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting, is not applicable when doing a small business set-aside due to the waiver to the Non-Manufacturer Rule. FAR Clause 52.212-5 will be revised to uncheck FAR Clause 52.219-14. FAR Clause 52.219-14 will also be deleted in full text. | |
| RFP | L.7.2. & L.9.2.3 | 52, 53 | In Table 1.0 in section L.7.2 of the RFP, the guidance for the file naming structure for the Written Authorizations points to section L.9.2.3. However, paragraph L.9.2.3 defines the required content of the letters, but does not address naming convention for the proposal submission. Please clarify the desired naming convention (if any) for the Written Authorization letters. | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 1.b. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP | L.7.2 | 52 | The RFP states that proposals are to be submitted on CD/DVD. In table L.7.2, there are two sections for Volume 1, being 1a and 1b. Does the government want both 1a and 1b content on one CD/DVD, or would the government prefer two separate CD/DVDs meaning one for 1a and one for 1b? | Volume 1. Technical 1a. and 1b. will be represented on one CD. CD submission is two copies. RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 will be revised to reflect this change. | |
| RFP | L.7.2 | 52 | In Table 1.0 in section L.7.2 of the RFP, a specific file naming structure is not detailed for proposal submissions for volumes 1b, 2, 3, or 5. The referenced RFP sections in the File Naming Structure column do not specify file naming structures for those sections either. If the government has a desired filed naming structure for these sections, please provide clarification. | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volumes 1.b., 2., 3., and 5 are revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| Attachment 2 | tabs 8 and 10-14 | In Attachment 2, tabs 8 and 10-14 do not have a column for a Certificate of Networthiness Number (column F on all the other tabs). Was this an intentional omission? | RFP Attachment 0002 (Catalog Template) has been revised to include the omissions. | ||
| RFP | L.13.1.6.1 | 56 | Please clarify the expectation of a Directory File as referenced in L.13.1.6.1 | A directory file should include the list of titles of all content/documents contained within a CD/Volume. | |
| RFP | L.13.1.6.2 | 56 | In subparagraph b of section L.13.1.6.2 of the RFP, it says to include information on any “first-tier subcontractor with a proposed subcontract estimated at $10 million or more.” Given that the anticipated quantities of proposed software products are entirely unknown, there is no apparent rational basis for making this determination. How would the government recommend offerors estimate potential subcontracts in order to comply with this paragraph, as well as subparagraphs c through e of section L.13.1.6.2? | In accordance with FAR Part 22.805 a pre-award clearance for contracts and subcontracts of $10 million or more, the contracting officer shall request clearance from the appropriate OFCCP regional office before award of any contract, including any indefinite delivery contract. | |
| SOW | 5.1 | 8 | In paragraph 5.1 of the SOW, it states that “Prime Contractors must have independent quality processes and/or certifications that demonstrate the Contractor is engaged in quality planning…” However, there does not appear to be any guidance in the RFP proposal instructions for including evidence of this quality commitment. Please clarify how offerors are to demonstrate this requirement in the proposal. Also recommend adding ISO-9001 as a requirement as currently there is no evaluation factor around this section | Refer to RFP Section A paragraph 8. "The guaranteed minimum will be for a one-time report that describes and demonstrates the Contractors organization and internal process/tools/interfaces that will be used to manage the contract." | |
| SOW | 5.4 | 9 | In paragraph 5.4 of the SOW, the potential for a security clearance being required for related ancillary services is stated. How would the government like offerors to demonstrate their existing security clearance level as part of their offer? Recommend adding a minimum TS requirement as currently there is no evaluation factor around this section. | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Section 5.4. "The specific Contractor security clearance will be determined at the delivery order level." | |
| SOW | 5.4 | 9 | Given that this RFP requires product specific Letters of Authorization, and these document(s) are not readily available from all OEMs, will the governmnet give an extention of 90 days to allow compliance with this non business standard directive in the RFP? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. CHESS contractors must be authorized to sell the products on their contract catalogs. | |
| SOW | 1 | 1 | What does the vetting process entail for non approved vendors | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Paragraph 1. Introduction. The vetting process is for products. "Software catalogs included on ITES-SW 2 will contain products that have and have not gone through a vetting process." | |
| SOW | 3.2 | 3 | Our COTS software solutions connect to SAP to make it easier to use for logistics and maintenance personnel across hundreds of processes. Does this RFP have any bearing on Army SAP enhancments? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.1.1. Prime vendors are required to offer products in the four core catalogs and 4 additional catalogs of the vendor's choosing. The vendor must also meet the depth requirement. The Government is not requesting specific brands nor is excluding specific brands. | |
| SOW | 3 | 3 | Our COTS software optimizes SAP for logistics and maintenance processes. We also provide Analytical solutions and other COTS software products not covered in your catalogues. Given we can’t meet the catalogue selection requirement as is, is that an automatic disqulaification from the RFP? | Offeror proposals shall meet the full requirement of this RFP. In addition, refer to RFP Section L.13.2.1.7. Vendors who cannot meet the minimum requirement on their own can pursue teaming arrangements. The Government requirement as detailed in the SOW must be met. | |
| SOW | 6.6 | 6 | Our implementation process to SAP varies based on product and customer repsonse times. Does the phase in period include the vetting process, IT review, and implementation? | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Paragraph 6.6 Phase In. | |
| SOW | 7.7 | 19 | is there a preferene towards perpetual or subscription based pricing? We provide both options | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) paragraph 3. Product Catalogs. "Contractors will provide all commercially available delivery methods and licensing models for products on their catalogs. Examples of delivery methods and licensing models include but are not limited to Perpetual, Subscription and Software-as-a-Service." | |
| RFP | L.7.1 | 52 | If all the COTS software products provided in our submitted catalogue template are created by our company, is a WA required in the proposal? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. No. | |
| RFP | L.10.1 | 53 | The Past performance reference guide is very government specific. If our solutions have not been vetted by the government can we rely on industry references. If so, is there a different format for submitting industry references or do you want us to fill out Attachment 0003 to the best of our ability. What information in attachment 0003 is mandatory | 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 in accordance to RFP Section L.10.6.1.
Use the same format. If a row is not applicable, state the reason why.
| RFP | L.11.4.7 | 55 | We provide COTS software solutions. All integration, configuration, and license distrubition is performed internally. There is no technical or economical reason for us to enlist small business subcontractors, unless one will act as a contract vehicle (i.e. Carahsoft is a contract vehicle for SAP licensing). Would this constitute an automatic disqulaification from the RFP. For reference, we are not classified as a large business | Refer to RFP Section L.11, Small Business Offerors do not have to submit a Small Business Participation Plan. |
| RFP | ALL | ALL | Does the government have a preferred prime contractor for COTS software distribution that we should connect with if we do not qualify as a standalone company for ITES-SW2 | The Government does not have a preferred network of OEMs/Publishers/Distributors. |
| Attachment 0001- ITES SW-2 SOW | Product Catalogs 1-14 | 20 | Please clarify if the term "product" means a individual software license such as Microsoft Word, or would a product be defined as a Manufacturer? As an example Microsoft would have hundreds of SKU's for there product offerings | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Appendix G (1.17 Product or Products). |
| Attachment 0001- ITES SW-2 SOW | 3.16 SW Catalog Requirements (b) Software Catalog Requirements | 5 | Please clarify if a Contractor can make additions Post Award to any of the Catalogs or just the catalogs that the contractor selects and provides products to during this submission? | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) 3.16 SW Catalog Requirements (b). |
| ITES SW RFP | L.9.2.3 | 53 | In regards to the "written authorization from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)/publisher/distributor", does the letter need to state authorization for each product or can it state that the contractor is authorized to sell products based on the identified manufacturer? As an example Microsoft would have hundreds of SKU's for there product offerings | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. 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. |
| SOW | 7.3 Self-Audit | 16 | The referenced self-audit lanugage is concerning and does not provide satisfactory evidence for use quantities. Would the Government consider modification to allow for Contract audit at scheduled intervals? | The Government requirement remains unchanged. |
| RFP Section L.10.5 | 1 | 53 | The Government is asking for "Relevant" contracts as past performance references. Please clarify whether the government will accept past performance references from Commercial, State and Local Government, and/or Educational Institutions as relevant references, provided they meet the criteria of "involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires." | Volume 2 -Past performance, L.10.5 includes Federal, State, and local government and private. |
In accordance with FAR 15.305(2)(ii) The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.
| SOW 5.1 | 1 | 8 | SOW 5.1 states: Prime Contractors must have independent quality processes and/or certifications that demonstrate the Contractor is engaged in quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvement (e.g., ISO 9001:2008, ISO 10018, ISO/IEC 20000-1:2011 Information Technology – Service Management, Capability Maturity Model Integration - Services (CMMI-SVC)). Are offerors required to submit proof of their quality certifications with their proposals? Will the Government incorporate these certifications into their evaluation criteria? | This will not be evaluated. Refer to RFP Section A Paragraph 8 and Attachment 0001 (SOW) paragraph 5.6 | |
| RFP L.9.2.3 | 1 | 53 | L.9.2.3 requires "The written authorization shall be product specific". May written authorizations be provided to cover a class of product that includes the proposed items or must each speficif item/part number offered be specifically referenced/listed in the written authorization? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. 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. | |
| RFP L.9.2.3 | 1 | 53 | L.9.2.3 states that "Written authorization is defined as a | ||
| letter of supply, letter of authorization, or a signed document from an OEM/publisher/distributor authorizing the Offeror to sell the specified software product." Will a Letter of Supply for GSA schedule be sufficient? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. The written authorization must come from the OEM/publisher/distributor. | ||||
| RFP L.9.2.3 | 1 | 53 | L.9.2.3 states that "Written authorization is defined as a | ||
| letter of supply, letter of authorization, or a signed document from an OEM/publisher/distributor authorizing the Offeror to sell the specified software product." Will an official email from an authorized OEM representative be sufficient? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. | ||||
| RFP L.9.2.3 | 1 | 53 | L.9.2.3 states that "It should also clearly demonstrate that the authorization is for Federal purchasing." Many OEM's do not have separate federal authorizations and instead offer on e authorization that covers sales of their products to all vertical markets. If the OEM does not separately authorize federal sales, is a generic authorization sufficient to provide? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. | |
| RFP L.7.1; L.9.2.3 | 1 | 52, 53 | Please provide file naming convention and file format (eg, PDF) for Volume 1.b, Written Authorizations from OEM. | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 1.b. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP L.7.1; L.10.6.1 | 1 | 52, 53 | Please provide file naming convention and format (MS Word or PDF) for Volume 2, Past Performance. | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 2. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP L.7.1 | 1 | 52 | No file naming convention is provided for Volume 5. Please provide file naming convention (eg, ABC-Contract Proposal-ITES-SW2.pdf). | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 5 is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| VOLUME 3 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. Small Business Offerors are not required to submit any |
information in response to this factor. Small Business Offerors will be given an Acceptable Rating for Small Business Participation.
An Offeror is considered a Small Business if it can certify its Small Business status under NAICS 511210
| small business participation L.11 | Page No. 54 | We are a WOSB, economically disadvantage small business, do we have to submit a small business plan under L.11 ?or does it mean we are not required to submit volume 3-factor 3-small business participation in its entirety? | Refer to RFP Section L.11, Small Business Offerors are not required to submit any information in response to this factor. |
| VOLUME 3 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. Small Business Offerors are not required to submit any |
information in response to this factor. Small Business Offerors will be given an Acceptable Rating for Small Business Participation.
An Offeror is considered a Small Business if it can certify its Small Business status under NAICS 511210
| small business participation L.11 | Page No. 54 | We are a WOSB, economically disadvantage small business, do we have to submit a small business plan under L.11 ?or does it mean we are not required to submit volume 3-factor 3-small business participation in its entirety? | Refer to RFP Section L.11,. Small Business Offerors are not required to submit any information in response to this factor. |
| Attachement 0001-5.1. Contractor Qualification Prime Contractors must have independent quality processes and/or certifications that demonstrate the Contractor is engaged in quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvement (e.g., ISO 9001:2008, ISO 10018, ISO/IEC 20000-1:2011 Information Technology – Service Management, Capability Maturity Model Integration - Services (CMMI-SVC)). | 5.1 Contractor qualification- paragraph 1 | Page No.8 | Can a prime submit these certifications of its certified teaming partners and/or distributors? |
For the purposes of this proposal, this action is not a requirement. The minimum guarantee is a post award action. Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) 5.6. for details.
| Attachment 0001 5.5.1 and 5.7 (b) of SOW | Warranty Variations and Telephone Support Availability and Response Times | Pages 10 and 11 | Section 5.5.1 states that response times may be negotiated at the delivery order level but section 5.7 (b) states the Contractor will respond IAW the below response timetable. This seem to be a contradiction, we recommend that you add the same language in section 5.7 (b) that is in section 5.5.1 "that response time may be negotiated at the delivery order level". | The baseline requirements are the default requirements. Customers may negotiate timeframes that add to the existing SOW but cannot lesson the requirement in the base contract. |
| Attachment 0001 section 2 paragrapgh 3 and Attachment 0002 | Scope and Catalog Template | Page 2 in Attachment 0001 and Rows F through J in Attachment 0002 | Do rows F through J in Attachment 002 need to be completed as part of the submission only for SW Products that are CON or RMF certified ? If yes, can the government add the URL link to Attachment 0001 section 2 paragraph 3 so contractors can view the list of software that have obtained a Certificate of Networthiness or RMF certification. We notice the URL Link was provided in the amendment 1 of the RFP for the original ITES SW contract. | RFP Attachment 0002 (Catalog Template) has been revised to include the omissions. |
NETCOM owns the CoN and RMF Process. For the purposes of the this evaluation the CoN and RMF columns of RFP Attachment 0002 (Catalog Template) will not be evaluated per RFP Section L.9.2.
Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Section 1. Introduction, The Government will provide a CoN list to vendors quarterly as long as it remains actively maintained by NETCOM.
| L.9.1.1 of RFP | Software Product Catalogs | Page 52 | For clarification would the government consider a SW product as two unique products if one is a desktop version and the other is listed as an enterprise version? | No. Refer to RFP Section L.9.1.1. |
| L.9.2.3 of RFP | Software Product Catalogs | Page 53 | To ensure clarity of responses from Offerors and fair evaluation, Offeror recommends the following requirement be modified as noted below: |
"The written authorization shall be product specific and include effective dates to demonstrate the authorization is active as of the proposal date. It should also clearly demonstrate that the authorization is for Federal purchasing."
Offeror has numerous agreements as a reseller with OEMs and Distributors, and in many cases constantly add new software products, as the marketplace evolves. The original language can create an exhaustive list of deliverables to be compliant with the RFP's stated requirement and would span numerous agreements, if broken down product wise. Our recommend language, proposed below, maintains the same requirements required by CHESS, albeit in a manner, which is more cohesive for all Offerors and CHESS to evaluate and recommend the sentence be changed to:
| "The written authorization shall be OEM or Distributor specific and include effective dates to demonstrate the authorization is active as of the proposal date." | 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. | ||||
| M.3.3.4.1 of RFP | Factor 3 - Small Business Participation | Page 60 | Is the Small Business total goal for the contract 22% (SB = 15 + SDB = 2 + WOSB 2 + HUBZone = 1 + VOSB = 1 + SDVOSB = 1) or 15% (SB = 8 + SDB = 2 + WOSB 2 + HUBZone = 1 + VOSB = 1 + SDVOSB = 1)? | Refer to RFP Sections L.11.3.4 and M.3.3.4.1. Small Business Participation is based only on the service component based on projected total of $9M. The overall Small Business goal is 15%; SDB, WOSB 2%; HUBZone, VOSB, & SDVOSB 1%. | |
| L.12.3 of RFP | Volume 4 – Price | page 55 | Please clarify what information is required in the "narrative explaining [Offeror's] methodology for pricing the Option Period." | If no escalation applied, please state that. If escalation/de-escalation was applied to the base year pricing to develop the option year pricing, explain what methodology was used and the basis for the escalation/de-escalation used. If another method was used to price the option year, explain what that methodology is and the rationale for its use. | |
| L.12.3 of RFP | Volume 4 – Price | page 55 | What is the required file format (i.e. Word, Excel, etc.) and Naming Convention for the "narrative explaining [Offeror's] methodology for pricing the Option Period"? | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 4 is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.xls(x) (Attachment 0007) ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf (Narrative). | |
| 34 (d)(10)(iv) and L.11.5.2 of RFP | Contract Clauses and VOLUME 3 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION | page 23, page 55 | If a Contractor is covered under a Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and thus not required to submit ISRs, would the Government be willing to accept the Contractor's annual SSR report in lieu of the three ISRs required in paragraph L.11.5.2? | RFP Section L.11.5.2 is revised to include submission of three Summary Subcontracting Reports. | |
| 14 | SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION | page 4 | Due to substantial changes made between the draft RFP and the final RFP, we ask that the Government extend the deadline for proposal submission to October 16, 2019 at 4:30pm Central Time. | Amendment 0001 of this RFP incorporates the change of proposal submission to 25 September 2019 at 4:30 Central time. | |
| SOW | 7.3 Self-Audit | 16 | This clause contradicts BMC's EULA audit language. Will you consider allowing the vendor's EULA to take precedence? | No. The RFP remains unchanged. | |
| RFP | L.10.8 | 54 | Can the Government confirm offerors should limit explanations of Adverse Past Performance to other IDIQ, MAC, BPA, and/or GWAC contracts that are similar in scope to ITES-SW 2? | RFP Section L.10.8 Adverse Past Performance references L.2.6.1 in error. This is revised to L.10.6.1. L.10.6.1 references Attachment 0003, Past Performance References, for each recent and relevant contract. Recency is defined in L.10.4 and Relevancy is defined in L.10.5. | |
| RFP | L.11.5.2 | 55 | If an Offeror has a Commercial Subcontract Plan, which does not require ISRs, can Offeror indicate that it does not hold any Individual Subcontract Plan? | RFP Section L.11.5.2 is revised to include submission of three Summary Subcontracting Reports. | |
| RFP | L.12.2 | 55 | With technology rapidly changing, software publishers and resellers need the capability to ensure pricing is aligned with current market conditions which will allow access for customers to procure the latest technology being offered. How will contract holders, post-award, be able to refresh its catalog pricing through-out the period of performance? | Reference Attachment 0001 (ITES-SW2 Statement of Work), paragraph 3.16(a) Minimum Product Offering and 3.16(b) Software Product Additions. | |
| RFP | L.3.2 | 50 | Due to new laptops/computer devices no longer including a CD-ROM/DVD drive, would the government allow for submissions via USB flash drive devices? | Refer RFP Section L.3.3. USB flash drives are not allowed to be used in Government computers. | |
| RFP | L.11.2.1 | 55 | Will it be acceptable to the government if an offeror did not list specific companies under Paragraph D of the Small Business Participation Plan attachment (Attachment_0005_-_Small_Business_Participation_Plan.pdf), so that it can identify the appropriate small business company that has the expertise and experience to provide the needed services for a specific opportunity and technology? | Refer to RFP Section L.11.4.7 Compliance Requirement | |
| RFP | L.11.2.1 | 54 | So that offerors can maximize its network of small business partnerships, which will assist in achieving goals with small businesses as well as provide greater opportunity for future small business participation, will the government allow for offerors to utilize additional small business companies not listed if it is required that a list of small business companies must be included under paragraph d? | Refer to RFP Section L.11.4.7 Compliance Requirement | |
| SOW | 5.1 (Contractor Qualifications) | SOW, Page 8 | Will the government consider revising the ISO qualification to the current standard of 9001:2015 versus 9001:2008? | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Paragraph 5.1. The ISO reference in the SOW is not a requirement, it is an example. | |
| RFP | 8 Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Items (e) / L.3.2 | 46 / 50 | On page 46 of the RFP in the Instructions to Offerors, paragraph (e) states "Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers...Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately." However, on page 50, paragraph L.3.2 states "Offerors shall submit only one proposal..." Can the Government please clarify if it will accept multiple proposals or only a single proposal per offeror? | See RFP Section L, FAR provision 52.212-1, Multiple offers "See RFP Section L.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, Paragraph L.3.1." | |
| Attachment_0002_-_Catalog_Template | Column B (Product Name and version) | Can the government clarify how an offeror would present a product where the software publisher does not have a software version? | If a product does not have a software version, a software version would not be entered into the catalog template. | ||
| RFP | L.12.3 | 55 | Paragraph L.12.3 of the RFP asks offerors to "include a narrative explaining its methodology for pricing the Option Period." As there doesn't seem to be a place to include this narrative on our Attachment 7 submission, should offerors include this narrative as a separate MS Word file? If so, could the Government please define the appropriate naming convention for this document? | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 4 is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.xls(x) (Attachment 0007) ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf (Narrative). | |
| RFP | L.7.2 / L.9.2.3 | 52 / 53 | RFP paragraph L.7.2 references paragraph L.9.2.3 for the naming convention for the Volume 1b file. However, there does not appear to be any reference to the required Volume Section naming convention in paragraph L.9.2.3. Could the government please provide the naming convention it would require for our Volume 1b response? | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 1.b. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP | L.7.2 / L.10.6.1 | 52 / 53 | RFP paragraph L.7.2 references paragraph L.10.6.1 for the naming convention for the Volume 2 file. However, there does not appear to be any reference to the required Volume Section naming convention in paragraph L.10.6.1. Could the government please provide the naming convention it would require for our Volume 2 response? | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 2. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP | L.7.2 | 52 | RFP paragraph L.7.2 does not provide a naming convention for Volume 5. Could the government please provide the naming convention it would require for our Volume 5 response? | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 5. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP | L.13.1.6, L.13.1.6.1, L.13.1.6.2 | 52 | RFP paragraph L.13.1.6 identifies attachments to include with offerors Volume 5 cover letter, but does not define how it would like these files named. Could the government please provide the naming conventions for the required Volume 5 response attachments? | RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 "File Name Structure" for Volume 5. is revised as follows: ABC-Catalog-ITES-SW2.pdf | |
| RFP | L.5.2.10. | 51 | Can the government please increase the file size limitation from 300 MB? Our concern is if the catalog attachments exceed that limitation due to the amount of items to be proposed, and due to zip files not being acceptable. | RFP Section L.5.2.10 has been revised to the following; "There is no limit on file size." | |
| RFP | L.10.6.1 | 53 | Can the government provide an MS Word version of Attachment 0003_-_Past_Performance_References.pdf? | Reference RFP L.10.6.1, the form version of Attachment 0003 will remain a PDF. | |
| RFP | L.7.2 | 52 | Based on the naming conventions defined in RFP Section L.7.2, can the Government confirm Volume 1 is made up of 2 separate files - 1 for Volume 1a and 1 for Volume 1b? | Volume 1. Technical 1a. and 1b. will be represented on one CD. CD submission is two copies. RFP Section L.7.2 Table 1.0 will be revised to reflect this change. | |
| RFP | L.11.4.4 and L.11.5.3 | 55 | Based on the naming conventions defined in RFP Sections L.11.4.4 and L.11.5.3, can the Government confirm Volume 3 is made up of 2 separate files? | RFP L.11.4 Small Business Participation Plan and L.11.5 Commitment to Small Business shall be separate files within the same CD ROM/DVD submission. | |
| RFP | L.13 and L.13.1 | 55 | Can the Government please confirm that the "Executive Summary" and the "cover letter formally transmitting the proposal" are one and the same? If so, should the cover letter be provided on company letterhead and included within Volume 5? | The Executive Summary shall include all elements under Section L, Volume 5, Paragraph L.13.1 Section 1. This includes a cover letter. | |
| RFP | L.11.2.1 | 54 | Can the Government provide an MS Word version of Attachment_0004_-_Performance_Assessment_Questionnaire.pdf? | Reference RFP L.10.6.1, the form version of Attachment 0004 will remain a PDF. | |
| SOW | 5.5 | SOW, Page 10 | Section 5.5 (Warranty and Warranty Variations) of the SOW states, “The Contractor shall provide a 90 day guarantee that, at a minimum, the software is free of defects.” Commercially, software is not warranted to be defect-free; rather, software is warranted to conform to the documentation and support and maintenance are used to address bugs/defects. Accordingly, can this requirement be removed, leaving in standard commercial warranties? | RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Paragraph 5.5 is revised to the following: "The Contractor shall provide commercial warranties for all software at both CONUS and OCONUS locations as defined in paragraph 5.3. The Contractor shall provide a 90 day guarantee that, at a minimum, the Software will operate materially in accordance with the applicable specifications set forth within the documentation. The 90 days will begin on the date the customer accesses the software." | |
| RFP L | L.9.2.3 | 53 | Regarding Written Authorization Requirements, Can these be in the form of a Letter from an authorized distributor listing ALL titles that they are providing? OR, does there need to be a Written Authorization for each individual title? | Refer to RFP Section L.9.2.3. 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. | |
| RFP L | L.9.1.1 | 52 | There is a requirement to list the same product multiple times. In one view, form Microsoft, there are 13 versions of MS Office. We have a question: Should the following be shown as 1 title, 3 titles or 8/13? | ||
| • | MS Office 2016 | ||||
| o | Home and Student | ||||
| o | Home and Business | ||||
| o | Standard | ||||
| o | Professional | ||||
| o | Professional Plus | ||||
| • | Office for Mac | ||||
| o | Home and Student | ||||
| o | Home and Business | ||||
| o | Standard | ||||
| • | MS Office 2013 | ||||
| o | Home and Student | ||||
| o | Home and Business | ||||
| o | Standard | ||||
| o | Professional | ||||
| o | Professional Plus | This is one title/product. L.9.1.1 states do not list the same product multiple times. | |||
| RFP L | L.13.2.1.7 | 56 | Regarding a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA), are there any limitations on large businesses being in a CTA with a small business? | In accordance with FAR Part 9.6, there is no limitation on a large business being in a CTA with a small business. Reference RFP Section A, paragraph 4. In order to do Small Business Set-Asides at the order level, an Individual Waiver to the Non-Manufacturer Rule has been granted for NAICS 511210. The waiver means that small businesses can provide the product of either a large or a small business. FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting, is not applicable when doing a small business set-aside due to the waiver to the Non-Manufacturer Rule. |
RFP L L.11 54 We are a small business. We wil have a couple of large businesses in our CTA.
1) Since we are small, do we need a small business plan?
| 2) Do our large business teammates have to provide any small business experience, commitment and reporting documentation? | Refer to Section L.11.1 Small Business Offerors are not required to submit any information in response to this factor. | ||||
| RFP Executive Summary | 4 | 2 | The NAICS code specified has a $38.5 million revenue limit for small businesses. In light of the kinds of products requested for this contract, the contract's dollar value, and its 5 year life span (not including options), small businesses that are even marginally successful will quickly no longer be considered small. Additionally, this RFP contemplates orders that include not only software, but related hardware and services. In order to ensure that the Army has a competitive, stable range of small businesses, we respectfully request consideration for replacing the NAICS with 541519 Footnote 18. This NAICS is for VAR small businesses, well suited to products requested on ITES-SW2, and to ensuring that small business awardees do not risk their competitive advantage by being successful. | The PCO selected NAICS 511210 based upon market research and determined this NAICS as the most appropriate. Per 13 CFR 121.404, small businesses that submit a proposal during the initial solicitation, remain small businesses for the duration of the contract until such time as the PCO requires recertification. | |
| Atch 001 | 4.1 | 7 | Can hardware be purchased on this contract if it is not already on the CHESS Hardware contract? | Refer to RFP Attachment 0001 (SOW) Paragraph 4.1. For Army Requirements: If hardware is required to fulfill a customer’s requirement, the CHESS hardware contracts will be the mandatory source for hardware IAW Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5139.101. If the hardware is not available from a CHESS contract, the Contractor can obtain the hardware through an alternate source. An Information Technology Approval System (ITAS) waiver is required for purchase of hardware products from another source, regardless of dollar value. The first step to obtaining an ITAS waiver is the CHESS Statement of Non-Availability (SoNA) process. The customer can access the SoNA process located on the IT e-mart at https://chess.army.mil/Content/Page/SONA. The ITAS waiver should be included in the DO upon award. |
For Non-Army Requirements:
If hardware is required to fulfill a customer’s requirement, the CHESS hardware contracts will be the preferred source of supply.
| Atch 0007 | NA | NA | Can Column M be used to clarify the unit prices in columns K & L? For example there might be a unit price for qty 1, a lower unit price for qty 2-10, etc. Each of these same product-different qty would have different line #s but other entries like software publisher, product salient characteristics, etc. would be the same. | In response to the solicitation, the Government would expect Offerors to price its minimum commercial sales unit. Refer to FAR clause 52.212-1 (h). |
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 .