RFP_Industy_Questions_and_Govt_Responses_W56JSR-18-R-0016.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W56JSR18R0016
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a draft solicitation for software and engineering support services. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Software Engineering Center, Command, Control, and Communication Tactical Directorate Mission Command Division Development Branch is seeking consolidated technical, engineering, and management services for development and follow-on post deployment software support activities for their portfolio of systems and support. The solicitation number is W56JSR18R0016 and responses were due by October 31, 2018. The opportunity is unrestricted but has a valid small business opportunity. The incumbent is CACI and this will result in a single-award contract with cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders issued against it. Pricing is to be provided using the cost data worksheet in Attachment 0004.
RFP Industry Questions and Government Responses W56JSR-18-R-0016
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
| No. | Document | Page Ref # | Paragraph # | Quote | Issue/Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | Draft Solicitaton W56JSR-18-R-0016 | 233 of 244 | Section L-16.2-1.2 , under Volume II Past Performance | “If a contract is in current performance, at least one (1) full year of performance shall have been completed on the contract to be considered recent.” We have a contract that was awarded to us in February of 2018 with a period of performance that runs through 3/20/2023, with an award value of $15M+ and current obligated funding of $2.4M, which is a follow-on to the contract we were a sub on for a year. Therefor we do not have 1 full year of performance under either of the contract numbers (unless the bid is due after 2/9/2019), but together we have a full year of performance on the project. Our question on this is (1) below. | Will the government consider past performance acceptable if the offeror has performed on the referenced project a total of 1 year or move, even if it’s under 2 contract numbers? | Section L-16.2-1.2, Volume II Past Performance has been amended. Please carefully review. | |
| 2 | SEE Quote in box D2 | Will the government consider changing the past performance criteria to “…at least one (1) full year of performance or obligated value in excess of $2M …”? | See Question #1's response | ||||
| 3 | SEE Quote in box D2 | Will the government consider making this a SDVOSB set-aside? | Market Research results do not support limiting the solicitation to a SDVOSB set-aside. See Section L-16.1.3 and Section M-1-4 | ||||
| 4 | SEE Quote in box D2 | Given the level of quality support required across mission critical areas for software development and engineering support, it seems appropriate to require offerors to meet minimal industry quality standards which have a history of providing for a greater level of support and success. Will the government consider mandating that offers must have ISO 9001, ISO 20000, CMMI-DEV ML3 and/or CMMI-SVC ML3? | No, the government will not consider mandating that offers must have ISO 9001, ISO 20000, CMMI-DEV ML3, and/or CMMI-SVC ML3? | ||||
| 5 | Given the level of management support required across mission critical areas and multiple task orders, will the government consider including the Program Manager as a key position and part of the evaluation criteria? | Resultant contract will be an IDIQ and PM is just one labor category. Multiple orders could be used for Program Manager (PM) labor category support. Government will not evaluate proposals based on resume's as Offeror's are not obligated to provide those personnel during performance | |||||
| 6 | Note: We are specifically concerned, since we have Mission Command Common Software Testing under one of our current SSES tasks. | Can you please tell me if SSES contract holders will be required to submit an OCI plan or will be unable to bid? | This effort will not create any OCI's because it is not SETA type support it is work that could be done under NexGen it was just placed outside of NexGen due to the requirements being better suited for an IDIQ. | ||||
| 7 | Has this solicitation number moved from pre‐solicitation to an RFP stage? If this is now a solicitation what is the due date? (we do not see it on FBO or in the Oct 19th revised draft | ||||||
| solicitation.) If this is not yet an RFP when is this scheduled to be released? | When the solicitation is statused as Final, the Response Due Date for Proposals will be updated. The solicitation comments will be updated to advise of "Final Solicitation Status". | ||||||
| 8 | Is this a follow on contract? If yes then can you share whom the incumbent is? If there is an incumbent will they also be submitting a response? | The services for this effort have been previously provided under contract W15P7T-12-D-E010, Task Order KX04. The incumbent is CACI. Offerors can defer to solicitation under Section A. | |||||
| 9 | Is it the governments intent to award a single or multiple awards for this solicitation? | This will be a single award contract. | |||||
| 10 | We note within the recent revised draft solicitation a due date for questions as of October 31, 2018. Is that correct? | Yes, this date is correct. | |||||
| 11 | Is the contact information as follows correct? (karla twyman) or was this a placeholder until the RFP? | Please respond to both the Contract Specialist, Karla D. Twyman, Email: karla.d.twyman.civ@mail.mil and the Contracting Officer, Matthew R. Marx; matthew.r.marx.civ@mail.mil. | |||||
| 12 | There are two locations for completion of pricing, the spread sheet Attachment 0004 and the revised draft |
solicitation. Is it the intent to complete both or will one of these be sufficient?
We would request to please use the spread sheet as that will be more accurate and avoid key stroke errors in
| completing both and less of an administrative burden on the contractor. | Pricing is not completed in the draft solicitation. Per Sections L-16.3-1.1 through L-16.3-1.3, each Offeror’s Cost Volume shall consist of two documents, a Cost Data Worksheet and a Pricing Methodology (see Attachment 0004 Cost Data Worksheet & Instructions). Section L-16.3-1.2 of the solicitation provides instructions on how to fill out the Cost Data Worksheet (Attachment 0004). Section L-16.3-1.3 provides instructions on what kind of information should be provided with the Pricing Methodology. | ||||
| 13 | Is this opportunity active? If yes, when is the anticipated release date? | Currently this solicitation is in "draft" form on FBO.gov. When the solicitation is statused as Final, the Response Due Date for Proposals will be updated. The solicitation comments will be updated to advise of "Final Solicitation Status". | |||
| 14 | What vehicle this opportunity might come out? | It is a stand alone solicitation resulting in a stand alone contract. | |||
| 15 | Will this be a small business set-aside or will it be released again as an unrestricted solicitation? | This is a small small business set-aside. This solicitation, PDSS for C3T, W56JSR-18-R-0016 is unrestricted but has valid small business opportunity. | |||
| 16 | What is the LOE for this contract? | This Solicitation # W56JSR-18-R-0016 can be found on FBO.gov. The Level of Effort (LOE) document shows an attachment under this solicitation. Please reference attachment" W56JSR-18-R-0016 Attachment 0002 Projected Level of Effort.pdf. | |||
| 17 | Who is the incumbent? | See Question #8's response | |||
| 18 | Is it a Small Business set-aside? | See Question #15's response | |||
| 19 | Pursuant to the referenced draft solicitation, Section L-16.4-1 | Is this a single-award acquisition? | See Question #14's response | ||
| 20 | Is Task Order 1 being awarded at the same time as the IDIQ contract, as a result of this solicitation? | Ordering Period 1 represents the 1st Task Order | |||
| 21 | Attachment 0002 - Projected LOE for 5 Year IDIQ Ordering Period First Task Order | What is the basis for the 2,087 hour man-year in the First Task Order (as this is not a standard man year)? | These are standard hours for AMC for determining CMEs. The 2087 hours account for holidays and leap years. | ||
| 22 | L-16.1-1.1 and .2 | As the three risk categories -- technical, functional performance risk -- do not align with the risk categories addressed in the DoD's Risk, Issue and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (January 2017), will the Government please further define these three risk categories, to include examples of each? | Section L-16.1-1.1 and L-16.1-1.2, Volume I Management Plan Proposal have been amended. Please carefully review. | ||
| 23 | L-16.1.3 | Will the Government clarify the start date for contract performance? The current date in the DRFP, 25 February 2018, has passed. | The date has been revised as follows (see L-16.1.3) "…approximate initiation of contract performance is 25 March 2019" | ||
| 24 | Model Contract | Is there intentionally no Section H in the Model Contract? | Yes, there is no Section H in the draft solicitation | ||
| 25 | L-16.2-1.8 | Considering the past and current status of CACI, International and T2S Solutions, LLC in performing heavily SETA and SETA-like activity in support of Mission Command and SEC (Contract W15P7T-12-D-E010, KX04 and multiple task orders under OASIS contracts GS00Q14OADU309 and GS00Q14OADU407), and as each are organizationally embedded therein, are these companies precluded from competing for this development work pursuant to FAR 9.505? If not precluded, how is this conflict of interest otherwise being avoided or mitigated? | The Government does not foresee any OCI issues. Offerors are deferred to the draft solicitation, section L-16.2-1.8 in response to this inquiry. | ||
| 26 | L-16.1-1.3; Section C | Article 7 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) | Will the 95% retention performance metric be included in the QASP? | Please carefully review solicitation, section L-16.1-1.3 regarding retention performance. | |
| 27 | Section C | 7 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) | Is a draft QASP required or desired for submission with our proposal? | Please see solicitation, under L-16.1.6, Proposal Files regarding submission instructions. | |
| 28 | L-11 52.216-1 Type of Contract; L-16.3-1.2 | Section B Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs; | The Section B CLIN structure, established by LCAT, combined with the establishment of ceiling rates in the IDIQ contract, aligns with FAR 16.601 Time and Materials Contracts, specifically FAR 16.601(b)(1) which states that a T&M contract provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of "direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include, wages, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit." FAR 16.306 Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts allows for a fixed, negotiated fee but variation in actual cost, "as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract." With the establishment of fixed rates by LCAT in this IDIQ, how is it that CPFF and not T&M task orders will be issued thereunder? | Cost Plus Fixed Fee(CPFF) contract type differs from Time and Material (T&M) in both how the rates are evaluated and administered after award. Based upon this requirement, CPFF is most appropriate for this effort. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .