Questions and Responses W81K04-22-R-0011.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W81K0422R0011
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army Medical Command
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a solicitation for medical command and headquarters capability support services. The solicitation seeks proposals to provide programmatic, financial, audit, data analytics, medical research, and IT support services to the Army Medical Command, Office of the Surgeon General, and regional health commands. Key details include that the services are a follow-on to an existing contract, involve supporting locations both on-site and remotely, have a one-year base period and four one-year options, and will be awarded under lowest price technically acceptable procedures to a single contractor.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W81K04-22-R-0011-0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Mission Essential Services .pdf | ||
| QASP Rev.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP Attachment 7 Price Matrix (Rev 1).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibit 7 Wage Determination Falls Church VA.txt | TXT text file | |
| RFP Attachment 6 PAQ.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP Attachment 7 Price Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Exhibt 6 Wage Determination MEDCOM.txt | TXT text file | |
| Attachment 2 DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification.pdf | ||
| W81K04-22-R-0011 MEDCOM OTSG HQ Capability.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment 1_Contractor Questions Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP Attachment 5 PAQ Cover Ltr .docx | DOCX document |
Show all 12
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
| FROM | Document | Pg # | Para # | Question | Answers |
| RFP W81K0422R0011 | 158 | 1 | Pertaining to Basis of Award: Given DoD guidance on limitations for using lowest price technically acceptable source selection procedures (DFARS 215.101-2-70), the type of work to be performed, and that the Basis of Award in the Draft Solicitation was Best Value, would the government consider changing the Basis of Award back to Best Value? | Refer to Addendum 52.212-2 Basis of award | |
| W81K0422R0011 | Is this new software that the Army is looking for or a renewal? If this is a renewal, may I please have the Period of Performance dates? | This is not new software | |||
| W81K0422R0011 | Would you please send me one of your old solicitations, W81K0421R0031, or point me to where it is otherwise available? | The Government will not provide a copy of the old solicitation. | |||
| W81K0422R0011 | Can the government be more specific in what they are looking for when it comes to "SUBFACTOR 4: DATABASE SYSTEMS"? The offeror shall demonstrate their experience with the database systems listed in PWS exhibit 4 " How are we to demonstrate this experience? This contract has no real DB support, modification, administration involvement. | Refer to the PWS para 5.2.2.2 | |||
| W81K0422R0011 | Could the government grant an extension to July so we can get our end of Quarter financials finished out to be able to demonstrate financial capability? | An extension is not granted. | |||
| W81K0422R0011 | Can the government confirm that the previous contract held by Seneca Global Services was for a one (1) year period of performance? | Services are currently provided under W81K04-21-C-0011 for a 1 yr period of performance. | |||
| W81K0422R0011 | If the previous contract was only awarded for one (1) year, can the government explain what has changed in the RFP's scope of work to now require a one (1) year base and four (4) option periods? | Refer to W81K0422R0011 period of performance | |||
| W81K0422R0011 | 133 | Volume III Past Performance | Will the government allow for five (5) past performances instead of three (3) to allow offerors to provide past performance from prime offerors as well as from major subcontractors? | Offerors will be required to submit three past performance submission | |
| W81K0422R0011 | 158 | Addendum to far 52.212-2 | Will the government consider an evaluation criteria based on Best Value vs. LPTA? This requirement is calling for audit readiness services and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) states contracting officers shall avoid LPTA evaluation factors for these types of services. FAR Part 15.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process states that (d) Except for DoD, in accordance with section 880 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232, 41 U.S.C. 3701 Note), contracting officers shall avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, using the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process in the case of a procurement that is predominantly for the acquisition of— |
| (1) Information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, audit or audit readiness services, health care services and records, telecommunications devices and services, or other knowledge-based professional services; | The decision to use LPTA as the basis for award was documented, reviewed and approved within US Army Health Contracting Activity. | |||||
| W8K0422R0011 | 158 | Addendum to far 52.212-2 | If the government will not change the evaluation criteria to Best Value, can the government please explain the rationale for choosing LPTA? | Refer to FAR 52.212-2 Addendum | ||
| W81K0422R0011 | 133 | Contractor Teamining Arrangements | Can the government confirm a Joint Venture comprised of two businesses can bid this requirement so as long as the 8(a) managing partner qualifies as small? The SBA states a mentor and its protégé can joint venture as a small business for any small business contract, provided the protégé individually qualifies as small. The joint venture may also pursue any type of set-aside contract for which the protégé qualifies, including contracts set aside for 8(a), service-disabled veteran-owned, woman-owned, and HUBZone businesses. | The joint venture must be registered in SAM under the the 8(a) firm and must be an 8(a) firm. | ||
| W81K0422R0011 | 98 | Attachment 3 | Attachment 3 is referenced as Mission Essential Services on page 98, however this is missing from the document. Can the government provide the Mission Essential Services attachment? | |||
| The Government will provide the Mission Essential Services attachment. | ||||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 104 | 1 and 2 | For the 2 Financial Manager roles (Army Accounting Systems SME | GFEBS, DTS, Agreements Support Manager): |
1) What should the split of each role specification be to comprise the required 2 FTEs?
| 2) Does the Government care which Financial Management – Manager (GFEBS Work stream Lead) or Financial Management – Manager (Sr. GFEBS SME) is remote and which is located at JBSA? | 1) Refer to PWS para 1.6.13 2) No preference on location. | ||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 101-108 | Table | Financial Manager - Middle is broken into 2 suppositions (Army Accounting Systems SME | GFEBS, DTS, Etc., Agreements Support Manager): |
1) Can the government provide further insight into the breakdown of how many of these personnel fall within the sub-positions?
2) Does it matter which of these personnel is at a specific location?
| Reference Exhibit 3 Employee locations | ||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102, 107-108 | 4-5 (107) | ||
| 6-7 (108) | The Employee Locations table on page 102 lists 9 required FTE Management Analyst Seniors, but page 107-108 has 4 different role specifications for Management Analyst Senior (Programming/POM SME, Senior Logistics SME, Sr. Strategy Planning and Operations SME, EMS Program Developer): |
1) What should the split of each role specification be to comprise the required 9 FTEs?
| 2) Does it matter which of these personnel is at a specific location? | 1) reference exhibit 3 projected workload data 2) reference exhibit 3 projected workload data | ||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102, 108 | 3 | The Employee Locations table on page 102 lists 16 required FTE Management Analyst - Middle, but page 108 has 3 different role specifications for Management Analyst-Middle (Action Officer/Budget Analyst, Medical Logistics Specialist, Action Officer/Budget Analyst): |
1) What should the split of each role specification be to comprise the required 16 FTEs?
| 2) Does it matter which of these personnel is at a specific location? | 1) reference exhibit 3 projected workload data 2) reference exhibit 3 projected workload data | |||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 101-103 | Table | Financial Manager - Junior: | |||
| 1) There is not a description of this position although it is listed in the "Projected Workload" and "Employee Locations" tables. Can the government provide further insight into this position and/or the required qualifications? | This position is deleted from the PWS. | |||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102-103 | Table | Data Analyst - Middle: | |||
| 1) There is not a description of this position. Can the government provide further insight into this position and/or the required qualifications? | added position description | |||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102-103 | Table | Data Analyst - Junior: | |||
| 1) There is not a description of this position. Can the government provide further insight into this position and/or the required qualifications? | added position description | |||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102 | Table | For highly qualified SME not working on classified material will the government consider additional remote or hybrid functionality? | Reference Exhibit 3 Project workload data | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 103 | Table | For highly/uniquely skilled personnel will the government allow the substitution of years of experience for education requirements? | Reference the PWS for specific qualifications | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102 | Table | Will the government please provide clarity on its rationale regarding LCATs and assigned locations? | See Exhibit 3 for LCAT | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102 | Table | Will the government consider the contractors site as an acceptable alternative (on a case by case basis) to the currently assigned duty locations? | See Exhibit 3 for locations | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 158 | 1 | Based on the complexity and specificity of some of the identified LCATs and the subject matter expertise required for successful contract performance the governments current evaluation strategy specifically relating to past performance and price may present the government with an unreasonable risk of award to a contractor that will inevitably fail to perform, therefore, would the government consider altering the proposal evaluation strategy? | Refer to Addendum 52.212-2 | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 104 | 4 | Does the Government consider the Management Analyst – Senior (EMS Program Developer) to be a SME? Also because of the unique capability and experience required for this LCAT with respect to the unique mission at DHA should this LCAT not also be considered key personnel? | The data analyst senior is considered a SME. Senior analyst is not considered key personnel. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 107 | 3 | The Management Analyst – Manager is required to possess a Bachelor’s Degree and six of the outlined eight qualifications. Are the eight outlined qualifications weighted evenly? | |||
| Management Analyst - Manager will be required to meet all of the qualifications. | ||||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 133 | 8 | Because of the governments intended evaluation strategy it may be in the governments best interest to secure a prime vendor capable of successful performance, therefore would the government consider limiting the past performance submissions of major subcontractors to 1 submission per major subcontractor? | Reference 52.212-1 2. c. Volume III Factor 2 Past Performance | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 59 | Table | Would the government consider adding an approved DCAA accounting system as a requirement for award due to the complexity (locality, benefits, state to state requirements, 1099 and other contractor employees, the complexity of subcontracting arrangements and funding, etc...) of the solicitation requirements? | The Government does not plan on adding an approved DCAA accounting system as a requirement for award. | ||
| RFP_Attachment_7_Price_Matrix | Tabs MEDCOM COMP, OTSG COMP, and YR 1 REMOTE COMP | Table | Please clarify how the government intends on leveraging the fringe benefits disclosure to determine the adequacy of a vendor's price submission? | |||
| - how do these disclosures apply to price realism/reasonableness if under the government terms and conditions, a vendor’s submission may not be evaluated comparatively? | The Government will evaluate price in accordance with the solicitation FAR 52.212-2 Addendum. | |||||
| RFP_Attachment_7_Price_Matrix | Tabs MEDCOM COMP, OTSG COMP, and YR 1 REMOTE COMP | Table | What, if any, references, absent a comparative evaluation of a vendor’s pricing elements, will the government contemplate so as not to bias the criterion towards incumbency or references not in the public domain? | The Government will evaluate price in accordance with the solicitation FAR 52.212-2 Addendum. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 128 of 178; 133-135 of 178; | Table 1 | Volumes III and IV as presented in Table 1 are organized differenlty in the respective volume instructions. For example, Table 1 identifies the Sub-Contractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter as the first item required in Volume III; however, this letter is not included in the organization of Volume III presented on page 133 and 134. When there is a discrepency, please confirm whether offerors should follow the organization in Table 1 or the organization in the written requirements proceding Table 1. | Adding to table 1 Past Performance (Contracts Description and Performance narrative). The Subcontractor teaming partner consent letter is included as RFP attachment 3. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 131 of 178 | 9 | Are offerors required to submit information in their proposals in response to the Organizatonial Conflict of Interest requirement, such as acknowledgement of an OCI review? We understand that a plan is only required if the Contracting Officer identifies an issue during proposal review. | Refer to Addendum 52.212-1 (9) Organizational Conflict of Interest | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 83 | 3 | Pertaining to Task 5.1.2.2 Audit Remediation, could the Government confirm if this scope of support is only required for system-related NFRs and related CAP remediation, or is this scope also expected to include any non-system (e.g. business process, etc.) NFR remediation as well? | pws para 5.1.2.2. audit remediation is required for all business processess | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 98; 119 | Exhibit 1; QASP Attachment 1 | Would the Government consider changing any Performance Standards that currently note "hours" or "days" to instead a business day specification? For example, changing "within 24 hours" to "within 1 business day". | Changed to 24 hours or next business day | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 99; 119-120 | Exhibit 1; QASP Attachment 1 | Exhibit 1 and the QASP Attachment 1 currently indicate that the contractor shall provide audit capability services such that "Audit reports services shall be performed in accordance with DoD Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Guidance". Could the Government please add specificity to this row for what exact standards and requirements are expected per service/report in order to help ensure an objective Performance Standard that can be tracked and measured? | Reference PWS para 5.1.2. Audit reports shall be IAW FIAR Guidance. | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 100 | Exhibit 2 | For Deliverables 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, the Deliverables Schedule currently notes these are due "Within [XX] days of completion". Is there alternatively a specific number of calendar days from starting on the contract that these trainings must be completed by? | Refer to W81K0422R0011 Exhibit 2 Deliverables Schedule | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 104-105 | 3-5 | For the noted Financial Manager-Senior and Financial Manager-Middle descriptions on pp.104-105, is it expected that all Financial Manager-Senior and Financial Manager-Middle LCAT resources (estimated as 4 and 14 FTEs, respectively, in the Employee Locations table) meet these descriptions, or just a specific subset of these FTEs? | Reference the qualifications for the positions listed in exhibit 3 projected work load data | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 109 | Exhibit 4 | Is one of the systems listed in Exhibit 4 next to "Audit Support" used by MEDCOM/OTSG/RHCs for the submission and management of audit-related requests and documentation (e.g., PBCs, audit samples, etc.), or is there a separate system or tool used for audit response purposes? | The systems used to provide audit support are used by MEDCOM/OTSG/RHCs for the submission and management of audit related requests and documentation. | ||
| Solicitation/RFP | 133 | Subfactor 3 | The Subfactor 3 section notes that "The offeror shall submit a representation of the credentials…" Is the Government interested in a representative resume per each labor category? | Reference Addendum 52.212-1 subfactor 3 para 3 | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 27-28 | N/A | Given this procurement is a small business 8(a) set-aside, recommend removal of the following clauses: |
FAR 52.219-9
FAR 52.219-16
| DFAR 252.219-7003 | Removing clauses | |||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 27 | N/A | Given this procurement is for labor / professional services, recommend reomoval of FAR 52.219-33 | Removing clause 52.219-33 | ||
| Price Matrix |
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 135 | 3&4 | Will the government confirm Transition-In cost are included in the “Year 1 Labor Rates” tab and that all offerors must provide a cost for every hour of Year 1, to include the Transition-In period? | RFP Attachment 7 is revised. Reference W81K0422R0011 | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 74 | 4 sect 1.6.13 | While the scope of this work requires substantial expertise across a number of foundational MEDCOM programs and offices, the solicitation only identifies two (2) key personnel. Please confirm it was the government's intent to only assign two key personnel and the government is prepared to accept minimally qualified individuals to fill all other roles. | Management positions are considered key personnel. Offerors are required to meet the qualifications for each of the labor categories. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 74 | 4 sect 1.6.13 | Will resumes need to be submitted to support offeror's key personnel? If yes, will they count against the page count? | 52.212-1 Addendum Table 1 Proposal Organization states *Page limitations are exclusive of proposal cross-referencing matrix, legible tables, charts, graphs and figures and representation of the credentials. FAR 52.212-1 Addendum Subfactor 3 states The offeror shall submit a representation of the credentials, which include education, certification and experience, for the contract employees rendering services. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 158 | Para 1, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 | In accordance with DFARS 215.101-2-70, use of lowest-price technically acceptable (LPTA) shall avoid to the maximum extent practical for the procurement of information technology services, audit response and remediation services, and other knowledge-based professional services. The work within the PWS is subjective in which no minimum standard can be clearly established outside of when the deliverable is submitted. Will the government consider using Best Value as the basis of award? | The Government is using LPTA source selection procedures | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 102 | Exhibit 3 Employee Locations | The employee location table lists 4 duty locations; DHHQ, JBSA, Remote, and MEDCOM. Can the government clarify the specific location for FTEs aligned to MEDCOM? MEDCOM personnel operate out of DHHQ and JBSA. | Reference Exhibit 3 Project workload data (employee locations) | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 104 | Exhibit 3 | The details of the Labor Categories descriptions after the set of tables appear to be for specific individual positions. Is this a comprehensive list for all Labor Categories? If not, where are the other positions and what are the locations for each of these? | This is a comprehensive list of the positions | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 82 | |||||
| 114 | 5.1.1 | |||||
| QASP 2.1.3 | The QASP has administrative support services aligned to HQ Program Management while Part 5, Specific Tasks has that task under financial management services. Please clarify the discrepancy. | revised 5.1 to Administrative Assistant Support Services | ||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 83 | |||||
| 112 | 5.1.2 | |||||
| QASP 2.1.1 | The QASP states that audit support is for the Regional Health Commands while Part 5, Specific Tasks state the task supports MEDCOM, OTSG, and the Regions. Please clarify the discrepancy. | audit support to MEDCOM, OTSG, and MTFs | ||||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 161 | 6.g.v | Given the breadth and complexity of the requirements, the Government should demand a successful offeror demonstrate relevant performance experience. As constructed, the absence of experience is given the same weight as demonstrated successful experience. Please consider evaluating "neutral" past performance as unacceptable. | The Government will evaluate past performance IAW with the solicitation. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 3 72 102 103 | CLIN 0001 and Exhibit 3 Employee Locations | The contract CLINs state that the contractor shall provide support to "….MEDCOM Regional Health Commands (RHCs) Atlantic, Central and Pacific." Page 72 states that contracts supporting the RHCs will work at the RHC headquarters. The locationsof the regional headquarters are not listed. Also, which of the positions supporting the regions are remote and which are on-site? For personnel supporting at Ft. Belvoir and RHC-P, which of the 4 stated locations are applicable? Are any RHC-P personnel in Washington state or Hawaii? | The RHC HQ locations are listed in para 1.6.5. MEDCOM HQ and Defense Health Headquarters | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 3 4 | CLINs 001 - 0003 | All three CLINs state that "The Contractor shall provide HQ programmatic and financial management support remotely, which is comprised of Financial Management and Administrative Assistance; and Program Management Assistance services to MEDCOM Regional Health Commands (RHCs) Atlantic, Central, and Pacific." This states that services are only being provided to the regions and not the MEDCOM HQ or the OneStaff. Please clarify the intent. | Reference PWS para 1.4 Scope | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 5 75 | CLIN 0004 and 1.6.15 | OneStaff personnel travel OCONUS. Is the travel for this contract only CONUS or will there be OCONUS travel? If so, approximately how often? | OCONUS travel | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 73 | 1.6.7. | Which specific positions require a SECRET clearance? | Only the Management Analyst Senior (Sr, Strategy, Planning and Operations, SME) requires a secret clearance. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 73 | 1.6.7. | Typically, interim clearances are permitted. Are interim SECRET clearances and interim public trust clearances permitted? | Interim clearances are not acceptable | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 110 | Exhibit 5 | Why is the list of MTFs included? The PWS states the support is provided to OTSG, MEDCOM, and the Regions. Will there be travel to any/all of these locations? | The list of MTFs provides offerors a list of MTFs, this requirement supports. Reference PWS para 1.6.15 Travel | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 134 | d., e. | For Past Performance POCs, what is the difference between the Procuring Contracting Officer (section b) and the Administrative Contracting Officer (section d). Also, can you clarify the term Government contract administration activity Pre-Award Monitor and how we can identify the individual? Alternatively, can you make D and E optional? | The procuring contracting officer is contracting officer who awarded the contract. The administrative Contracting Officer administers the contract. Not sure who the pre-award monitor is deleting paragraph e. Paragraph d is the administrative activity and is not optional. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 159 | SUBFACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT PLAN, Section 4 | Employee names and summaries of their experience are necessary to propose key personnel that meet the qualifications for their respective positions. Can the Government please confirm that employee names and summaries of their experience are permitted for proposed key personnel in the sanitized version of Volume 2? | Addendum FAR 52.212-1 3) “Sanitized” means to exclude information that pertains to the offeror. This information excludes any information that would identify the company (i.e., name, address, telephone numbers, employees’ names, etc.). To sanitize the offeror’s proposal, the offeror shall include their CAGE code. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | 104-109 | N/A | The PWS provides detailed position knowledge/experience requirements on pages 104-109. These positions were considered key personnel in the draft PWS. Is the Government's intent still for offerors to propose personnel that meet the qualifications for the positions described in this section? | The offerors shall propose personnel who meet the qualifications and experience provided in the PWS. | ||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | N/A | Will the government require Offerors contractors to submit audited financials and or an appropriate line of credit? This will ensure Offerors are able to cover the cost for the large number of FTE's for at minimum 30-60 days | See 52.212-1 2.a. (7) Responsibility Determination | |||
| W81K04_22_R_0011_MEDCOM_OTSG_HQ_Capability | N/A | Will the government require contractors to provide their DCAA forward pricing rates? This will ensure the Offeror’s indirect rates are verified. | The Government does not anticipate the offerors to submit DCAA forward pricing rates. | |||
| W81K04-22-R-0011 MEDCOM OTSG HQ Capability | 76 | 1.6.19.4. The Contractor shall be eligible to obtain a NACI facility clearance from the Defense Security Service. | Is a facility clearance required from the Prime at this time of the bid submission? | The security clearance is not required at the time of bid submission. |
W81K04-22-R-0011 MEDCOM OTSG HQ Capability 76 1.6.19.4. The Contractor shall be eligible to obtain a NACI facility clearance from the Defense Security Service. Is the Prime allowed to use its Subcontractor's Facility Clearance? The prime is not allowed to use its subcontractor's facility clearance
Beta Sam Website 1 Description Section on beta Sam Website Is Seneca Global Services, LLC the current incumbent Seneca Global is the incumbent contractor
Beta Sam Website 1 Description Section on beta Sam Website Will multiple vendors be awarded a contract or just one single contractor Reference 52.212-2 Addendum Basis of Award
Beta Sam Website 1 Description Section on beta Sam Website Who is the current incumbent Seneca Global is the current incumbent
Beta Sam Website 1 Description Section on beta Sam Website What is the current contract amount of the incumbent Previous contract amount is not relevant as it has a lower amount of FTEs and is only for 1 year.
Beta Sam Website 1 Description Section on beta Sam Website what is the contract number of the incumbent W81K0421C0011
| Attachment 2 DD254 Contract Security Classification Specification | 1 | Box 6a and Box 6b | Are we required to submit Form DD254 with our bid? | The DD254 is not required with proposal submission. |
| Attachment 7 Price Matrix Tabs: MEDCOM COMP, OTSG COMP YR1 REMOTE COMP | Where applicable, can offerors add an additional row for each tab and each CLIN to provide different fringe rates for exempt and non-exempt labor categories? | See instructions on Attachment 7. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .