Detroit_Arsenal_Information_Technology_-_QA_Vol_III_Final.docx

Detroit Arsenal Information Technology (IT) Services:

Question and Answer Vol. III

1. The solicitation states, "For the Past Performance Factor, provide information for a total of up to two (2) recent and relevant contracts.” This statement reads as if one (1) qualifying past performance is acceptable as well as two (2) for a total of "up to two (2)". If only one qualifying past performance is submitted will it satisfy the quantity requirement and be evaluated?

The solicitation states UP to two relevant contracts. If only one relevant contract is received, it will satisfy the requirement.

2. Can the Government provide clarification to where the proposal should be delivered? Is it supposed to be delivered to the Bid Room in Building 231? Or to the mailroom at Building 255?

L.2.2.3 is the location which the proposal must be labelled/addressed to, regardless of whether hand-carried or mailed. L.2.2.4 are instructions for Offerors who choose to hand-carry the proposal to the Detroit Arsenal.

3. NAICS 541511 is defined as Custom Computer Programming Services. Should the NAICS be 541513 which is defined as Computer Facilities Management Services?

The NAICS code will not be revised.

4. Can the Government clarify what is meant by the exclusion of the Help Desk Support Service Specialist, Web Designer, Technical Editor, and Business Systems Analyst positions?

Per Section L.4.1.1.(b), the Government is excluding those positions from the review.

5. There appears to be a contradiction between related L & M RFP requirements. L.4.1.4 states that the Government will consider past performance of other affiliated corporate entities or divisions where resources of the other affiliated entity/division will be utilized in the performance of this contract, and M.4.1.2 that states the Government will NOT consider any contracts submitted where provided past contract performance information is from a source which is an affiliate of the Offeror. Can the Government clarify this apparent contradiction? Will the Government consider past performance of other affiliated corporate entities or divisions when it is demonstrated how their resources will be utilized in the performance of this contract?

This is not a conflict. The Government may consider past performance of other affiliated corporate entities or divisions when it is demonstrated how their resources will be utilized in the performance of this contract (which is the information requested in Section L.4.1.4) , subject to criteria set forth Section M.4.1.2 which will depend on: recency, relevancy, if performance information is obtained, and if so, the source of that performance information cannot be from a source which is an affiliate or an interested party.

6. I am interested in placing a bid on the Detroit Arsenal Information Technology Services solicitation (W56HZV-16-R-L102). I have logged into the FBO system, but I am not able to place an electronic response. I just registered for SAM this morning; I have an MPIN and am waiting for a CAGE number. I know that I will not be able to submit my bid until SAM clears up, but I was wondering if I would be able to start.

All interested vendors must have a CAGE code and SAM profile at time of award.

7. Section L.4.1.1, sub-section (vi) says: “Relevant Past Performance will consider the extent to which the submitted contract efforts are comparable in scope and magnitude of effort and complexity to the following statement of work requirements: I.T. task/services consisting of server support and application/program on-site support for U.S Department of Defense facilities involving management of at least 50 or more full-time personnel (or man-year equivalent) spanning a period of performance of a minimum of 1 year.” The above statement is severely restrictive when it says relevant experience can only be related US Department of Defense (DoD). For example, we have similar experiences at US Govt. civilian agencies. Can you please remove this restriction of past performance on DoD related experience only? OS that we can use similar experience. In Civilian sector also.

The Government appreciates your request; however, the requirement will not be revised at this time.

8. A 6-month extension for the incumbent was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website on March 22, thereby extending the current contract from September 2017 to March 2018. Does the government intend to extend or suspend activity on the current, open competition for this work?

The extension will not suspend the current solicitation for this effort.

9. Regarding Draft Q&A’s: it’s unclear if the Answers to Questions 6 and 10 (relating to joint ventures / mentor-protégé agreements) are consistent with RFP Section L.4.1.1. which states, “… if a joint venture entity is the Offeror, the joint venture members will be considered the Offeror, even if they are designated as subcontractors in the joint venture legal agreement”. Could you please provide clarification.

Refer to the final RFP terms related to joint ventures / mentor-protégé agreements.

10. In accordance with locations are specified in Attachment 0008, there is a location listing which has 9 different states listed. Does the template provided assume performance at these locations or just in Michigan? I notice in the Q&A questions 22 and 67, the USG did not answer the question completely in the Q&A. Can you confirm that all the various sites and labor categories to identify where support will need to be provided because all the job markets for compensation and taxes are different.

Most of the work will be performed at TACOM in Warren, Michigan. However, the customer is required to provide service at other Government sites and a few employees will need to be staffed for these locations as well. The labor categories to be provided with the proposal should remain consistent regardless of location.

11. It is well known in the industry that due to the serious security investigations backlogs in OPM, interim security clearances are taking over six months and SSBI’s are taking longer than six months. It’s not the contractor’s fault that the clearances are taking so long. Will the Government compensate us as soon as we complete the new hire process for a potential new employee?

The Government will only pay for hours worked by contractor staff that meet the security clearance requirements and certification requirements of the position.

12. Why does the Government not require resumes for the senior level positions so they can establish a correlation between experience, qualifications, certifications and the price submitted?

Past performance has been determined as the primary technical factor being evaluated. Resumes are not being reviewed as there is no guarantee those individuals will ever perform under the contract.

13. IT skills are so specialized that without resumes how will the Government establish the quality and experience required to meet your mission?

Technical merit will be determined by past performance of recent and relevant contracts performed by the offeror.

14. Can TACOM kindly allow us to present resumes of our senior IT staff?

No. Resumes will not be reviewed as a technical factor under this solicitation.

15. In the Q&A number 24 the Government states that: “There are no security or training certificates required on the base contract”. We feel that this statement is incorrect per section C.1.4.1 which states the following: “The contractor shall ensure that all contract personnel shall obtain and maintain all certifications and licenses necessary or appropriate to perform all work contained in this PWS and as specified in TOs. The Contractor shall maintain the training skills and qualifications of all personnel throughout the period of performance. The RFP and Q&A are contradictory. If we have to maintain certifications throughout the lifecycle of this contract, we need to build these costs into our pricing to make sure we staff the appropriate personnel. Therefore, we request that the Government provides certifications required for each labor category currently performing such services.

The Government will not provide the certifications required.

16. Based on our analysis of the positions under this RFP, we believe that several of them qualify as non-exempt. How should overtime pricing be calculated for these positions?

Overtime is not anticipated for this effort and historically has not been used. Although the RFP mentions overtime, it does not specify or require contractors to propose any overtime.