Question and Answer.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W81XWH21R0001
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army Medical Command
About this file
This document outlines requirements for a support contract to provide biomedical research application evaluation and scientific peer review services for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Services include electronic receipt, review, and maintenance of intramural and extramural research applications and proposals through an electronic portal. The contract will also provide support to enhance the government-owned, contractor-operated eBRAP system. The solicitation was released by the Department of the Army Medical Command. The response due date is August 16, 2021. The document includes attachments such as sample task orders outlining deliverables, timing, and pricing assumptions for program-specific scientific review support.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
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
W81XWH21R0001 BRAES
| Question Number | References | References | Question | Answer |
| 1 | L.2 proposal format and content instructions | proposal format | The instructions state "The Government will count the electronic copy as the original copy." (L.2.1) and state "Proposals shall be double-sided…" (L.2.4). Are we correct that this will be only an electronic submittal, in which case the documents will not be either single- or double-sided because it will be a "soft" copy? | Response - Yes, solicitation will be revised to remove "double-sided." |
| 2 | L.2.2 proposal format and content instructions | proposal format | The government states that "...proposals shall be...indexed (cross-indexed, as appropriate)...". Will the government specify whether it seeks a table that indexes proposal section numbers with PWS section numbers, or does it wish for each paragraph in the proposal to reference specific PWS section numbers? If the cross index is a table, is that outside the page count? | Response - Cross-indexing, can be done by paragraph in the proposal, as appropriate. If a cross-index table is used, it will be subject to the page limitations |
| 3 | L.4.2 Volume II Executive Summary, Technical Approach, Management Approach, Experience | page count | The beginning of Section L.4.2 states that resumes of key personnel, which follow the Experience section, will not be included in the page limits. Because the resumes, as well as the transition-in plan, are not included in the page count, can they be appendixes so the counted pages will be paginated consecutively to no more than 80? | Response - Yes, resumes and transition-in plan can be included as appendices. |
| 4 | L.4.3.1 Past Performance References | number of references | Section L.4.3.1 states "The Offeror shall submit no more than two (2) past performance references from …CPARS…as the prime contractor…" However, further, the end of the section states "past performance references shall be limited to no more than five (5) for the prime contractor...." Which is correct--no more than 2 or no more than 5? | Response - The solicitation requirement is for (2) past performance references in CPARS. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a list of ongoing and previous Government contracts held during the past three years, which are relevant to the PWS … The number of past performance references (for the list) shall be limited to no more than five (5) for the prime contractor and no more than three (3) for each subcontractor. The Offeror shall provide a narrative, which explains the relevance of each of the previous efforts. All contracts that have been terminated for cause shall also be listed but do not count in the reference limits. The 2 CPARS references are considered a separate requirement, in addition to the list of past performance references. **Each Offeror could conceivably submit 2 CPARS references and list 8 or more contracts (with narratives), which may include 5 for the prime and 3 for each subcontractor. The Offeror would also provide references for all contracts terminated for cause in the past 5 years.** |
| 5 | C.4.5.3 Pre-application/pre-proposal screening | work | Our understanding was that the peer review contractor does not review the scientific content of pre-applications and only conducts automated and manual compliance checks. Is Section C.4.5.3's intent that the peer review contractor will now support scientific review of pre-applications? | Response - There are limited instances in which programs required support from the peer review contractor to review the scientific content of the pre-application. The individual program task orders will specify when this support is required. See the following funding opportunity announcement in which the pre-applications were reviewed by the peer review contractor: https://cdmrp.army.mil/funding/pa/FY21-PRMRP-IIRA.pdf |
| 6 | L.4.2.2.3 Individual Technical Execution Plans (TEP) | Instructions | Will the Government provide addition Section L instructions or a sample TEP specifying the expected information to be included in the TEP responses in Volume 2? There is a wide range of topics that could be included. What is the Government's expectation? | Response - Section L.4.2.2.3 will be revised as follows: |
L.4.2.2.3 Individual Technical Execution Plans (TEP) for each of the sample task orders (Attachment 0001 – Attachment 0004) shall be included with the Offerors Technical Approach. Each of the sample task orders shall have separate TEPs, as specified in the applicable sample task order attachment. Each TEP shall not exceed 3 (three) pages. All cost/price information for each TEP shall be submitted in accordance with the instruction provided below in section L.4.5 COST/ PRICE PROPOSAL.
For clarification - LCRP requires 3 individual TEPs. PRMRP requires 4 individual TEPs. SAM requires 1 individual TEP. eBRAP requires 1 individual TEP. Each TEP shall be a maximum of 3 pages.
| 7 | L.4.2.2.3 Individual Technical Execution Plans (TEP) | Evaluation Factors | "M.3.1 The Individual Technical Execution Plans (TEPs) for each of the sample task orders will be evaluated for the degree to which it will lead to the successful execution of the sample task order requirement." What elements are being evaluated within the TEP? | Response - The requested information is provided in Sections L.4.5.2.1 . Any additional assumptions that were used as the basis for the cost proposal or limitations/contraints that may affect the technical approach may be included. | |
| 8 | L.4.5.1.1.1 Labor Categories/ Rates | Instructions | The Government has requested that the contractor shall cross-map each labor category back to the specific tasks from the Performance Work Statement, as shown in the provided template. Will the Goverment clarify if Offerors are required to map each numbered PWS paragraph to the LCATs and Hours, or does the Govenment prefer for Offerors to map LCATs only to the PWS SubTask Level (i.e., 4.9 eBRAP, 4.8, etc.)? | Response - Please cross-map labor categories to the PWS task or subtask, as appropriate. | |
| 9 | L.4.5.1.1.1 Labor Categories/ Rates | Instructions | When completing the rate template provided with LCATS, is the mapping against LCATs only? | Response - Please reference response to Question 8 above. | |
| 10 | Section 5.0: Contract Transition | PWS | Section 5.1 references a 30-day Incoming Transition Period and 5.2 References a 60-day Outgoing Transition Period. These requirements appear to be in conflict regarding the ability for the Offeror to provide a smooth transition. A 60-day transition period will benefit the Government by reducing transition risk. Will the Government please clarify the transition period requirement as 60-days? | Response - The Incoming Transition Period is 30 days. The Outgoing Transition Period is 60 days as stated in sections 5.1 and 5.2. | |
| 11 | Section 5.2 Contract Transition In | PWS | Is the Development and Test Environment infrastructure (hardware and software) owned by GDIT or are these environments GFE and subject to transition? | Response - The development and test hardware/software are presently GFE and would be transitioned | |
| 12 | Rate Template | Rate Template CPFF | Are FFP subcontractors required to provide indirect detail? If so, can they submit sealed packages directly to the Government? | Response - No, all cost/pricing submissions for subcontractors shall be provided in the Prime offeror rate template attachment. | |
| 13 | Section L.4.3 Volume III Past Performance | Past Performance References | Does the Government intend for the two past performance references from CPARS to be directly copied and pasted from the CPARS database and inserted into the past performance volume? Are we correct to place them at the end of the volume? | Response - No, providing contract numbers for CPARS references is sufficient. CPARS references should include narrative, which explains the relevance of each of the previous efforts, with respect to the effort described in this RFP. | |
| 14 | L.4.3.1 Past Performance References | Instructions | Are we correct that the two past performance references from CPARS for the prime contractor are part of the five past performance references from the prime contractor? | Response - Please reference response to Question 4 above. | |
| 15 | L.4.3 Past Performance Questionnaires | Instructions | The RFP states the Questionnaire Form is "Section J, Attachments" yet the form itself is indicated as Attachment 009. Was Section J replaced with Attachment 009?? | Response - The Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form is located in Section J, Attachments. The form is titled "Attachment 09 - Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire. | |
| 16 | L.4.3 Past Performance Questionnaires | Instructions | The RFP states that past performance questionnaires (PPQs) "shall be submitted with the Offeror's proposal by the submission deadline established in paragraph L.1.2." The PPQ form itself contains these instructions: "Please e-mail your response to the Contract Specialists listed at the bottom right corner of the questionnaire. Do not forward this document to any other point of contact." The two instructions appear to be contradictory. Will the Government please confirm that PPQs are to be emailed by the proposal due date to only the Government contracts specialist named in the PPQ form and PPQ forms are not to be sent back to the Offeror to be included in the Offeror's proposal? | Response - PPQ's are subject to the solicitation deadlines. In addition, PPQ's shall be emailed directly to the Contract Specialists outlined in the PPQ. PPQ's should not be sent back to the Offeror (or any other POC). | |
| 17 | PWS 4.3.5 - Missing | PWS | The PWS goes from 4.3.4 to 4.3.6, was section 4.3.5 omitted? | Response - No, this was a numbering error and has been corrected in the PWS. | |
| 18 | 4.6.4.1. | PWS | "The contractor will be expected to abide by a system interconnection agreement for exchange of data/files between the contractor owned system and EGS (or other Gov. application/resource as needed). Agreement will specify details to include security considerations, documentation, technical controls and standards, configuration control, communication plans, and roles and responsibilities." Will the Government please provide a copy of the existing interconnection agreement to help the Offeror prepare its technical approach? | Response - A sample Interconnection Security and Data Use Agreement has been provided as an attachment to the solicitation. This sample includes the basic elements and will be customized at time of award. | |
| 19 | 4.6.4.2. | PWS | "The contractor must agree to a data use policy which will define and limit how application/proposal data/files may be used and how long application/proposal data will be retained in the contractor-owned and contractor-operated system." Will the Government please provide a copy of the existing data use policy to help the Offeror prepare its technical approach? | Response - Please reference response to Question 18 above. | |
| 20 | SECTION 3.0: CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS | General | Would it be an organizational conflict of interest to provide services under both contracts for scientific review and programmatic review support bidding on this requirement? | Response - No. However, if the same entity were awarded both contracts to provide services for BRAES (scientific and technical peer review) and programmatic review, then that entity would not be allowed to submit as a prime (or subcontractor) performer in proposals against funding opportunities released via grants.gov. | |
| 21 | L.1.2. PROPOSAL DUE DATE - Proposals are due no later than 16 August 2021 11:00AM EASTERN TIME. | Instructions | Given the due date of technical questions of July 23, 2021 and the significant size of the proposal, will the Government grant a two-week extension to the due date after the Government provides answers to questions? | Response - Solicitation has been revise to extend due date. | |
| 22 | 4.9.2.1 | PWS | This section states "Maintain master eBRAP FOA set up document of all configuration parameters (i.e. FOA options, compliance requirements, and research classifications)." Can the Government please provide a copy of the FOA master set-up document to assist Offerors in preparing its technical approaches. | Response - This is a new requirement. | |
| 23 | L.4.3.1 Past Performance References | Instructions | "The Offeror shall list ongoing and previous Government contracts held during the past three years, which are relevant to the PWS, including…" Is this intended to be just a stand alone list of contracts separate from the in-depth past performance reference writeups? | Response - Please reference response to Question 4 above. | |
| 24 | L.4.2.2.2 Transfer of hardware warranties and software licenses (if applicable); | Transition | Are these expected transfers referring to GFE that the incumbent contractor currently possesses, or are these assets owned by the incumbent contactor. In the latter case, the offeror's would not be transferring assets from the incumbent contractor. Can the Government please clarify its requirement in requesting this task? | Response - Assets are GFE and would be transferred from the incumbent contractor | |
| 25 | L.4.2.2.2 Transfer of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Government Furnished Information (GFI), and GFE inventory management assistance. | Transition | Can the Government please provide an estimate or preliminary list of the GFE and GFI to be transitioned from the incumbent contactor to the successful offeror? | Response - Please reference new attachment - "GFE" | |
| 26 | L.4.2.2.2 Distribution of Contractor purchased Government owned assets…. | Transition | Can the Government please provide an estimate or preliminary list of the Contractor purchased Government owned assets that are to be transitioned to the successful offeror? | Response - Please reference response to Question 25 above. | |
| 27 | Section 5.2 Contract Transition In | PWS | What is the current hosting location of the development/test infrastructure? | Response - Per PWS 4.9.3.1 the current location is Century Link and may be in another location by contract award. It is anticipated that the new location may be COPT Data Center Manassas, Virginia | |
| 28 | L.4.2.2.3 Individual Technical Execution Plans | Instructions and Task Orders | "Individual Technical Execution Plans (TEP) for each of the sample task orders (Attachment 0001-Attachment 0004) shall be included with the Offerors Technical Approach. Each of the sample task orders shall have a separate TEP. Each TEP shall not exceed 3 (three) pages." | ||
| Task Orders 1 and 2 both contain requirements for three TEPs. Are those TEPs required from the Offerors, in which case are the pages for each those TEPs limited to 3 or not counted? | Response - Please reference response to Question 6 above. | ||||
| 29 | L.4.3.1 Past Performance References | Past Performance References | The instructions state that "The Offeror shall provide a narrative, which explains the relevance of each of the previous efforts, with respect to the effort described in this RFP." Will the Government please confirm that only a narrative is required, or must Offerors also include standard past performance information such as contract name, customer name, period of performance, contract type, total contract value, etc.? | Response - Please reference response to Question 4 above. | |
| 30 | L.4.3.1 Past Performance References | Past Performance References | The instructions state that "The number of past performance references shall be limited to no more than five (5) for the prime contractor and no more than three (3) from each subcontractor." Can the Government please confirm that it is not mandatory to provide past performance references from every subcontractor on our team? | Response - Please reference response to Question 4 above. | |
| 31 | L.4.2.2.1, Volume II (a) | Video | Please confirm that any text in the visuals presented in Volume II (a) Video Portion is not required to be 12 pt Times New Roman like text in the written volume. | Response - The font is not required to be 12 pt in video portion. | |
| 32 | L.4.2.2.1, Volume II (a) | Video | What content is required on each screen of Volume II (a) video? (e.g. Volume II (a), RFP #, coverage sections or tabs, title, subtitle, disclosure statements, page number) | Response - The content should include the basic information to identify this solicitation | |
| 33 | L.4.2.2.1, Volume II (a) | Video | What information needs to be shown in the panel makeup views? Currently that is unclear. | Panels are composed of individuals- makeup of panel may be based on expterise, degrees, or other demographics. Panels are also defined by scienfific areas in which proposals will be reviwed (i.e Cell Biology, Clinical Research, Translational research) | |
| 34 | L.4.2.2.3 Individual Technical Execution Plans | Instructions and Task Orders | Can the TEP responses refer to content in the primary Tech Volume, or must they stand alone completely? | Response - Individual TEP's may reference content in the primary Technical Volume but specific technical details related to the sample task order assumptions should be apparent in the individual TEP for the sample task order. | |
| 35 | Attachment 1, Sample Task Order: Lung Cancer Research Program | TEP | The Government states the Reviewer Load (# of proposals) varies 8 to 12, 7-10, etc. depending on the type of award. PWS 4.5.5.13 it states "each reviewer will process 8-10 applications with 7 as an average." Would the Government clarify if the reviewer load number for the Lung Cancer Research Program refers to the number of proposals each reviewer could review? | Response - Yes, the reviewer load number for the Lung Cancer Research Program sample task order refers to how many proposals each reviewer could review. | |
| 36 | Attachment 1, Sample Task Order: Lung Cancer Research Program | TEP | The Government states "applications for the Idea Development Award mechanism will be triaged (expedited review) as necessary." Would the Government clarify the definition of “expedited review?” | Response - Expedited review is a process in which there is an expedited determination of the potential merit of applications based on the assigned reviewers' initial pre-meeting scores. The contractor provides the pre-meeting scores to the Government (Program Manager), and the Government determines which parameters to use to identify which applications will be discussed during the panel meeting. Applications which are on the expedited list are triaged out and are not discussed by the panel, but may be championed by any panel member for discussion. Applications that are not championed for discussion therefore undergo an expedited review because they are not discussed by the panel. The Principal Investigator will receive the assigned reviewers' scores and critiques in a summary statement. | |
| 37 | Attachment 1, Sample Task Order: Lung Cancer Research Program | TEP | The Task Order makes no mention of consumer reviewers. Are they required? | Response - Sample Task Order for LCRP indicates "Reviewer Requirements: All mechanisms require scientist and consumer reviewers." | |
| 38 | Attachment 1, Sample Task Order: Lung Cancer Research Program | TEP | Section L instructions state: Each of the sample task orders shall have a separate TEP. Each TEP shall not exceed 3 (three) pages. The Task Order 1 appears to call out 3 or possibly 4 separate TEPs. How many TEPs are required for this task order and if more than one, will the government increase the response page count? | Response - Please reference response to Question 6 above. | |
| 39 | Attachment 2, Sample Task Order: Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) | TEP | The Government states the ”Reviewer Load (# of proposals) varies 8 to 12, 7-10, etc. depending on the type of award." In PWS 4.5.5.13, page 12, states "...each reviewer will process 8-10 applications with 7 as an average." Would the Government clarify in the sample task order for PRMRP if the reviewer load number refers to the number of proposals each reviewer could see? | Response - Yes, the reviewer load number in the sample task order refers to how many proposals each reviewer could review. | |
| 40 | Attachment 2, Sample Task Order: Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) | TEP | The Government states "applications for the Idea Development Award mechanism will be triaged (expedited review) as necessary." Would the Government clarify the definition of “expedited review?” | Response - Expedited review is a process in which there is an expedited determination of the potential merit of applications based on the assigned reviewers' initial pre-meeting scores. The contractor provides the pre-meeting scores to the Government (Program Manager), and the Government determines which parameters to use to identify which applications will be discussed during the panel meeting. Applications which are on the expedited list are triaged out and are not discussed by the panel, but may be championed by any panel member for discussion. Applications that are not championed for discussion therefore undergo an expedited review because they are not discussed by the panel. The Principal Investigator will receive the assigned reviewers' scores and critiques in a summary statement. | |
| 41 | Attachment 2, Sample Task Order: Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) | TEP | Section L instructions state: Each of the sample task orders shall have a separate TEP. Each TEP shall not exceed 3 (three) pages. The Task Order 2 appears to call out 3 or possibly 4 separate TEPs. How many TEPs are required for this task order and if more than one, will the government increase the response page count? | Response - Please reference response to Question 6 above. | |
| 42 | Attachment 2, Sample Task Order: Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) | TEP | The Task order calls out two contractors "Pre-application screening completed GDIT: late April 2022" and "Pre-application screening completed Leidos: mid May 2022". Does the Government mean, "Scientific Review contractor screening" vice "GDIT" and "Programmatic Review Screening" vice "Leidos"? | Response - The two dates were provides as tentative timelines. The Government listed two contractors in error. This has been corrected in the attachment. It should be assumed that pre-application screening is completed by the offeror by late April 2022. | |
| 43 | Attachment 4, Sample Task Order Statement of Work - Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) Electronic Biomedical Research Application Portal (eBRAP) | TEP | The Government states the contractor will “...prepare eBRAP and Grant Application Processor for Program Announcements and Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) (estimated up to 150) and FY22-23 USAMRDC Intramural Lab. Solicitations (estimated 50). List of current programs for these opportunities is listed below. Additional programs may be added." Would the Government estimate what the average number of programs “that may be added per FY?” | Response - In the past four years, CDMRP has received Congressional appropriations for 1-3 new programs each year. These new programs varied in size and scope. | |
| 44 | PWS Section 4.5.6.2, Triage | Triage | The Government states that the contractor "...will coordinate with CDMRP Program Manager on the final expedited (triage) review parameters." Would the Government provide examples of triaged parameters? | Response - Two examples: 1) Applications will be triaged from discussion if both the assigned scientist reviewers provided pre-meeting scores of 5 or lower for Research Strategy and Feasibility and all assigned reviewers provided scores of 7 or lower for Impact. 2) Applications will be triaged if all the assigned reviewers provided pre-meeting overall adjectival scores of Fair or Deficient and scores of 7 or lower for Impact. | |
| 45 | PWS Section 4.8.6.1, Dedicated Security | Security | The Government states there will be a dedicated security force at meeting locations. Would the hotel or conference location’s Security personnel meet this requirement? | Response - Yes | |
| 46 | PWS Section 4.8.6.5, Location to Level III Trauma Center | Meeting Locations | Would the Government define "near" in terms of miles or driving time? | Response - Within 20 miles | |
| 47 | PWS 4.5.3 Deliverable 11, Application Screening | Deliverables | The Government states that the pre-application screening, preliminary report must be submitted 2 days prior to initiation of moderated online discussion (if applicable). Would the Government clarify if the 2 days refers to business or calendar days? | Response - 2 business days | |
| 48 | PWS 4.2.4, Deliverable 2, Listing of pre-application and Attachment 7, PWS 4.2.4 | Deliverables | The Government states that the “listing of pre-applications with compliance issues and administrative modifications in eBRAP must be done within 24 hrs.” Would the Government clarify if 24 hrs. refers to 1 business or calendar day? | Response - 1 business day | |
| 49 | PWS 4.9.2.5 Deliverable 49, Helpdesk Tickets | Deliverables | The Government states that the Helpdesk tickets and responses will be submitted in the monthly metrics report. Would the Government clarify if the monthly metrics report is included in the combined monthly report or is this a separate report? | Response - One comprehensive report separated by sections | |
| 50 | Volume 2(a) Video Demonstration, PWS 4.4 Technical Requirements States Explicit Requirements for the Peer Review System. | Video requirements |
"4.4.1 Provide a secure contractor-owned, contractor-operated and hosted web-based electronic system that supports activities and capabilities specific to peer review, including but not limited to, document viewing, facilitation of various meeting formats including virtual meetings, individual reviewer and panel scoring and written evaluations, and conducting concurrent review in multiple meetings and/or panels. The contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance, operation, and hosting of the system. Such a system will have accessibility for the CDMRP Program Managers and Government observers/representatives. At minimum, the system must incorporate the following capabilities:
• Exchange of data via Web Services with the Government’s backend business system, Electronic Grants System (EGS) or other systems as needed and abiding by an interconnection agreement
• Display meeting documents (e.g. agenda, forms, briefings, booklets, graphs, documents, etc.)
• Display application review documents (e.g. application, budget, abstracts, statement of work, etc.)
• Display application information (e.g. title, org, PI, budget, assigned reviewers)
• Block viewing of specific applications by reviewers who have a conflict of interest (COI)
• Capture COIs for each reviewer
• Capture pre-meeting comments/votes/scores
• Capture meeting comments/votes/scores
• Share panel comments with other attendees
• Capture meeting notes from multiple sources
• Real time viewing, sorting, and ordering of interim and final scores
• Access for CDMRP Program Manager and other designated individuals to input notes and view progress, reports, notes, and documents"
Section L.4.2.2.1 Video Submission Requirements includes the following requirement: "Reviewer demographics and panel makeup views," which is not listed as a requirement of the Peer Review Tool Requirements PWS 4.4.
| Which reviewer demographics need to be available from the peer review system? Are they the same ones that are referenced in Section 4.5.5.17 of the PWS? | Response - PWS 4.4.1 Lists minimal capabilities of the tool. The demographics captured for peer reviewers would be data elements stored in the system since they are needed for panel makeup reports. This information should therefore ideally be available in within view(s) of the peer review tool. | ||||
| 51 | Volume 2(a) Video Demonstration | Video requirements | Section L.4.2.2.1, Video Submission Requirements, includes the following requirement: "Reviewer demographics and panel makeup views." Can the government clarity what information should be shown in the panel makeup views? | Response - Please refer to question 33 | |
| 52 | L.4.5.3 Offerors Accounting System | Acceptable Purchasing System | In order to demonstrate that an offeror has an acceptable purchasing system, as defined by DFARS Clause 252.244-7001, will the results of an independent, third party review be considered sufficient evidence that the prime contractor is complying with the requirements of the clause? | Response - Please reference DFARS Clause 252.244-7001 for information. | |
| 53 | L.4.5.1.1.1 Labor Categories/Rates | Labor Category Cross Mapping | Section states "In addition to providing all proposed labor categories and rates, the contractor shall cross-map each labor category back to the specific tasks from the Performance Work Statement. This cross-mapping shall be submitted as part of the Rate Template Attachment or as a separate, clearly labeled document." Does the cross-mapping apply to the full list of IDIQ labor categories and ceiling rates to the IDIQ PWS? If yes, with the unknowns about future TO's, are LOE hours required? Or was it the government's intent to apply to this requirement in offeror's sample task order response? | Response - Please reference response to Question 8 above. | |
| 54 | L.4.5.1.1.1 Labor Categories/Rates | Labor Category Ceiling Rates | The Rate template - CPFF tab column C requests unburdened (ceiling rate). Does the government intend to hold offerors to the proposed unburdened (direct labor) CPFF ceiling rates at the Task Order level? How are offerors expected to propose Key personnel under unburdened ceiling rates? | Response - Yes, Offerors will be held to their proposed unburdened ceiling rates. Proposed rates for labor (and key personnel) should be based on the Offeror's approach to requirement. | |
| 55 | Sample Task Order 0003 SAM | Sample TO 0003 SAM PoP | The task order POP states 30 May 2021 through 29 May 2022. The POP start date has already passed, should offeror's assume a start date that is more in line with the anticipated IDIQ POP dates (17 Nov 2021)? | Response - This was a sample period of performance. For clarity, the period of performance has been updated to 12 months. Offerors should assume the period of performance is in line with the IDIQ period of performance. | |
| 56 | Page 6 | PWS 3.1.1 | Section 3.1.1 states the contractor must have a signed letter of commitment from the proposed key personnel in response to the solicitation. | Response - Sections 3.1.1 has been updated to "letter of intent" for consistency. | |
| Page 57 | L.4.2.4.1 | Section L.4.2.4.1, paragraph 4 states – The Offer shall provide evidence of Key Personnel with relevant experience, as it relates to tasks in the PWS. The Offer shall propose Key Personnel with experience that will contribute successfully to the execution of the tasks in the PWS…For individuals proposed as Key Personnel who are not current employees the Offer’s company or subcontractor, a signed letter of intent is required. |
| Is the signed letter of commitment the same as the signed letter of intent? It is not clear if a letter of commitment is required since each section reads differently. | ||||
| 57 | Page 6 | PWS 3.1.2 | Which roles, if any, will require “access to Army installations, facilities or controlled area access areas?” | Response - This will be determined at the task order level. |
| 58 | Page 6 | PWS 3.1.2.3 | Unlike DoD 8570.01-M and AR 25-2, cannot publically locate the staffing requirements for “DoD 8570.02.” Can the government supply a copy of those requirements? | Response -DoD 8750.01-M can be found at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/issuances/dodm/ |
AR 25.2 can be found at the following link: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN17503_AR25_2_Admin_FINAL.pdf
59 Page 6 PWS 3.1.3.1 The link: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/52002r_0187/p52002r.pdf returns the error “Can’t reach this page.” Will the government please provide the Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2R directly? Response - DoD 5200.02 Procedures for the DoD Personnel Security Program can be found at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/520002p.pdf?ver=2018-05-11-100552-223
| 60 | Page 15 | PWS 4.7.2 | Does the government require a specific webinar tool (i.e., Zoom) for conducting webinars? Specifically, do they require a higher level of security than most “off-the-shelf” tools (i.e., Zoom for Government) for reviewer orientation webinars? | Response - Commercial Solutions approved for Government use (i.e. Zoom for Gov) are acceptable for webinars. Proposal files may not be shared on tools approved for IL2 data. Other potential tools identified must be further reviewed and pre-approved. |
| 61 | Page 16 | PWS 4.9 | For eBRAP software development, must staff work on premise or can some or all work be offsite and access the development environment virtually? | Response - Government Facilities are not being provided for this effort. All development activities will be conducted offsite |
| 62 | Page 16 | PWS 4.9 | Is there an established process for working with Grants.gov developers to conduct data exchange modifications? If so, can the process be provided? | Response - Development interactions with grants.gov are primarily supporting Grants.gov's public APIs and standard formsets which are published on Grants.gov |
| 63 | Page 17 | PWS 4.9 | Can we get the Governments software development reporting requirements? | Response - Development reports may include tickets per sprint, point values per ticket, level of effort per development effort (examples: Product backlog, Sprint backlog, etc...) |
| 64 | Page 17 | PWS 4.9.2.5 | Are there Help Desk Tickets being tracked to closure and managed to meet SLA’s? | Response - Tickets are tracked to closure but no SLA currently exists. SOPs for Helpdesk must be provided and reviewed by the Gov to ensure highest level of customer service, timeliness, accuracy and professionalism to end users |
| 65 | Page 17 | PWS 4.9.2.5 | Does the Help Desk site have any restrictions or special requirements set forth by the Federal Govt.? | Response - All helpdesk personnel proposed must be located CONUS and available during standard Helpdesk hours |
| 66 | Page 17 | PWS 4.9.2.5 | Who owns the domain name? The customer or the incumbent? Are they open to a new URL? | Response - CDMRP -owned. There are no plans to change the URL |
| 67 | Page 18 | PWS 4.9.3.2 | Is there an expectation that the eBRAP hosting environment will need to be moved? If so, for what reason? | Response - Yes; any change in IM/IT governance related to Government applications that dictates hosting requirements may result in a change in location of eBRAP hosting environment. Any change may also be directed by CDMRP to meet changing IM/IT strategy including potential consolidation of applications, serverers, cloud initiatives etc. |
| 68 | Page 18 | PWS 4.9.3.4 | What is the purpose of the eBRAP to eMASS connection? | Response - There is no direct connection from eBRAP to eMASS |
| 69 | Page 18 | PWS 4.9.3.5 | Does eBRAP interface with or will interface with any other government software applications that are not specified in the RFP PWS? | Response - At this time, all system-to-system interfaces have been identified in the PWS |
| 70 | Page 18 | PWS 4.9.3.7 | “Fix errors, defects and issues”—are there any known errors, defects, and issues existing and required to the current version of eBRAP? Are there known issues in eBRAP in regards to the workflow/process flow for the end client? | Response - At this time, there are no open defects. There are improvements to be made; requirements to be developed during the performance of the contract |
| 71 | Page 19 | PWS 4.9.4 | Are there currently any known enhancements to eBRAP’s website/application being pursued? If so, what are they? | Response - Enhancements to eBRAP will be defined and determined at the time of award at the task order level, during period of performance as well provided annually when assumptions are prepared for new task orders. (i.e. site redesign; development/incorporation of online helpdesk component, develop API's for external services such as ORCID. |
| 72 | Page 19 | PWS 4.9.4 | Improvements to eBRAP’s website may require improvements to the CDMRP website. Are CDMRP website improvements allowed under this contract? | Response - No. There is no interaction of eBRAP with CDMRP website |
| 73 | Page 19 | PWS 4.9.4 | Are development and enhancements performed using a content management system? If so, which one? | Response - No |
| 74 | Page 19 | PWS 4.9.4.1 | Can we get a list of high-level requirements for planned eBRAP enhancements? | Response - The sample task order assumptions contains examples of potential enhancements (i.e. site redesign; development/incorporation of online helpdesk component, develop API's for external services such as ORCID. |
| 75 | Page 19 | PWS 5.0 | Can the government confirm that the list of past reviewers, biosketches and contact information will be provided as part of the transition from the incumbent contractor? | Response - The list of past reviewers by fiscal year are posted on the CDMRP website on each program's page. However, the biosketches and contact information will not be provided as part of the transition from the incumbent contractor. |
| 76 | Page 19 | PWS 5.0 | Can the government provide a list of “existing policies and procedures” that will be made available for the “Incoming Transition Plan” and expected to be delivered as part of the “Outgoing Transition Plan”? | Response - Transition plans shall be proposed and based on the offeror's approach to the requirement. |
| 77 | Page 19 | PWS 5.0 | Will COVID restrictions require any portions of the transition to be 100 % virtual or will transition occur on site following government workplace safety requirements? | Response - Transition meetings may occur onsite if conditions will allow at the time. However, the Government prefers maximum use of virtual meetings, whenever possible, to minimize in-person meetings to an as-needed basis. |
| 78 | Page 19 | PWS 5.0 | What will be the preferred method of file sharing during the phase in and phase out periods? (i.e., SharePoint?) | Army SafeSite; personnel with approved CAC can access shared network repositories/drives |
| 79 | Page 19 | PWS 5.0 | Are the 30-day and 60-day transition periods calendar days or business days? | Response - Calendar days |
| 80 | Page 19 | PWS 5.1 | Can the government provide an estimate the amount of time required to badge new or transferred employees for Ft. Detrick and CAC badges? | Response - 30 to 60 calendar days. |
| 81 | Page 19 | PWS 5.1 | When will we obtain a list of incumbent employees? | Response - A list of incumbent employees will not be provided |
| Page 56; 65 | L.4.2.2.2, M.3.1 | |||
| 82 | Page 19 | PWS 5.1 | When will we vet employees and make contingent offers? | Response - Letters of intent for key personnel are due with the proposal in accordance with Section L.4.2.4.1. All other recruitment efforts are business practices determined by the offeror. |
| Page 56; 65 | L.4.2.2.2, M.3.1 | |||
| 83 | Page 20 | PWS 5.2 | Are there any outgoing transition requirements for training? | Response - No |
| 84 | Page 20 | PWS 5.2 | Regarding the outgoing transition, does the first 30 days of the 60-day transition occur before the new entity assumes the contract? | Response - Yes. Please reference response to Question 10 above. |
| 85 | Page 20 | PWS 6.1.2, para 2 | The link: https://tricare.mil/tmaprivacy/breach.cfm returns the error “The webpage cannot be found.” Will the government please provide a revised link, or the TMA Privacy Office guidance directly? This includes – i) Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Memorandum 1504-07, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information,” June 5, 2009; DoD 5400.11-R, ii) current and forthcoming DoD guidance on ARRA breach notification requirements; and iii) other applicable TMA Privacy Office guidance. | Response - The current version of DOD Safeguarding Against and Responding to Breach of PII and DOD 5400.11-R can be found at the following URL: https://www.rmda.army.mil/privacy/PII/PII-guidance.html |
| 86 | Page 21 | PWS 6.1.3., para 2 | The link: http://www.tricare.mil/tmaprivacy/downloads/PIADC.121008.pdf returns the error “The webpage cannot be found.” Will the government please provide a revised link, or the PIA Determination Checklist directly? | Response - The instructions for PIA have been updated in PWS section 6.1.3. |
| 87 | Page 21 | PWS 6.1.3., para 3 | The link: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd2930.pdf returns the error “Can’t reach this page.” Will the government please provide a revised link, or the DoD approved PIA Template, DD Form 2930 directly? | Response - Attachment "DHA DD2930 Fillable Template" has been provided |
| 88 | Page 21 | PWS 6.1.4, para 2 | The link: https://mhslearn.csd.disa.mil/ returns the error “Can’t reach this page.” Will the government please provide a revised link, or the Privacy Act and HIPAA training required through Military Health System Learn (MHS Learn) directly? | Response - https://jkodirect.jten.mil/ Access and further instruction will be provided for contractor employees with CAC cards. |
| 89 | Page 52 | L.1.2 | Considering lack of access to url documents and questions to be answered, will the government consider an extension of the proposal due date? | Response - Please reference response to Question 21 above. |
| 90 | Ops & Maint Bullet #9 | Attachment 04 SAMPLE Task Order Statement of Work | Could a list of DOD third-party approved plug-ins and software please be provided? | Response - The government primarily uses the DISA SRG/STIG guidelines as a general baseline for approved software. Any software or plugins without a STIG would need to be further reviewed and vetted for use |
| 91 | Dev & Enhance Bullet #1 | Attachment 04 SAMPLE Task Order Statement of Work | What are the parallel development efforts that our development processes would need to align to and support? | Response - The offeror should be capable of supporting concurrent development efforts with independent release deadlines |
| 92 | RFP L.4.3, Att 09 | Section L.4.3 states, “Completed past performance questionnaires shall be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal by the submission deadline established in paragraph L.1.2.” However, Attachment 09, Past Performance Questionnaire and Instructions, provides the following instruction to those completing the questionnaire: “Please e-mail your response to the Contract Specialists listed at the bottom right corner of the questionnaire. Do not forward this document to any other point of contact.” |
| These instructions seem to be in conflict. Please clarify. | Response - Please reference response to Question 16 above. | ||||
| 93 | RFP L.2.4 | Page 54 | Per the RFP, "Graphics, tables and matrices are exempt from the 12-point font requirement; however, any materials not legible to the evaluators will be disregarded." Are graphics, tables and matrices to be in Times New Roman font, or is Arial or Arial Narrow font acceptable? | Response - Per the solicitation, Times New Roman is the requied font and graphics, tables and matrices are exempt from the 12-point font requirement; however, any materials not legible to the evaluators will be disregarded. | |
| 94 | RFP L.2.4 | Page 54 | Is Times New Roman 10 point font for Figure Title/Captions (to match the table/figure text size) acceptable? | Response - Please reference response to Question 93 above. | |
| 95 | RFP L.2.4 | Page 54 | Is Times New Roman 10 point font in headers/footers and disclosure on cover/title pages acceptable? | Response - Please reference response to Question 93 above. | |
| 96 | RFP L.2.4 | Page 54 | Instructions request double-sided…Is this applicable, since BRAES is an electronic submission? Should only apply to a hard copy delivery, can we disregard? | Response - Please reference response to Question 1 above. | |
| 97 | RFP 4.5.5 | Page 11 | RFP Paragraph 4.5.5 states that the preliminary report of recruited reviewers, chairpersons, and assigned SROs (by program and PRP) is to be delivered within 10 business days of application/proposal receipt. However, Deliverables 16 in the Deliverables attachment, shows 15 business days for this deliverable. Which number of business days is correct? | Response - The numbers have been corrected in the Deliverables table to follow the RFP Paragraph 4.5.5: "Deliver a preliminary report of recruited reviewers, chairpersons, and assigned SROs (by program and PRP) within 10 business days of application/proposal receipt, and deliver a final report 15 business days prior to the peer review meeting." | |
| 98 | RFP 4.5.5 | Page 11 | RFP Paragraph 4.5.5 states that the final report of recruited reviewers, chairpersons, and assigned SROs (by program and PRP) will be delivered 15 business days prior to the peer review meeting. However, Deliverable 17 in the Deliverables attachment, shows 10 business days. Which number of business days is correct? | Response - The numbers have been corrected in the Deliverables table to follow the RFP Paragraph 4.5.5: "Deliver a preliminary report of recruited reviewers, chairpersons, and assigned SROs (by program and PRP) within 10 business days of application/proposal receipt, and deliver a final report 15 business days prior to the peer review meeting." | |
| 99 | RFP L.4.4.1 | Page 58 | SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN – Will the Government please confirm if the Offeror should complete the Small Business Participation Plan based on the proposed level of participation of small businesses in the performance of the overall IDIQ or for the various sample Task Orders? | Response - Per FAR 52.219-9 "percentage of total contract dollars, in addition to the goals expressed as a percentage of total subcontract dollars." | |
| 100 | RFP L.4.4.1.7 | Page 58 | Small Business Subcontracting Plan – Will the Government be providing a small business subcontracting plan template or can the Offer use their own template, provided it meets the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003? | Response - The Government will not provide a template. | |
| 101 | RFP PWS 3.1.2.3 | Page 8 | PWS 3.1.2.3 states "All contractor employees working IA/IT functions must comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoD 8570.02, DoD 8570.01-M and AR 25-2." Will the Government provide a copy or location for DoD 8570.02? | Response - DoD 8570.02 is no longer a requirement. PWS section 3.1.2.3 has been updated. | |
| 102 | RFP PWS 4.6.4 | Page 14 | Will the Government provide the specification for the interface and data transfer to the EGS system 4.6.4 | Response - The API's for EGS are using industry standard XML specification. The technologies utilized are open-source and industry standard. DoD system elements and specifics will be shared at the time of award. | |
| 103 | RFP PWS 4.9 | Page 16 | Will the Government please provide additional detailed materials for eBRAP to the Peer Review System in terms of the document types and meta data? | Response - Sample metatdata would include basic proposal information such as personnel contact Information, descriptors such as proposal title , program ,mechanism, and research classifiers. A sample of list of documents may include proposal and support files, budget, statement of work, etc. Please note there is no direct access allowed between eBRAP and Peer Review System | |
| 104 | RFP PWS 4.9.4 | Page 16 | Will the Government provide systems archtecture & design document for the GFE eBRAP system (e.g. will support DME solution)? | Response - Will be provided at the time of the award | |
| 105 | RFP L.4.3.1, para 2 | Page 58 | Section L.4.3.1, paragraph 2, asks Offerors to list “ongoing and previous Government contracts held during the past three years, which are relevant to the PWS.” |
| Is this list referencing the requirement for the five references for the prime contractor and three references for each subcontractor discussed in Section L.4.3.1, paragraph 4? | Response - Please reference response to Question 4 above. | |||
| 106 | RFP PWS 4.4.1 | Page 9 | RFP states "Exchange of data via Web Services with the Government’s backend business system, Electronic Grants System (EGS) or other systems as needed and abiding by an interconnection agreement" |
| Is the intention of the government to provide Peer Review System to EGS and other systems interface design speicification? | Response - Please reference response to Question 102 above. | |||
| 107 | RFP L.4.2.2.2 | Page 56 | RFP states "Transition of historic data to new Contractor system;" |
| How many years of peer review activity historical data will need to migrated to new system? | Response - 2 years | |||
| 108 | RFP PWS 4.4.1 | Page 9 | RFP states "Provide a secure contractor-owned, contractor-operated and hosted web-based electronic system" |
| Would the Government like the contractor to be aware of any performance-specific considerations i.e. resilliance, disaster recovery, and availability? | Response - Contractor should be aware of security standards and best practices. For example, NIST Guidelines (SP 800-53) | ||||
| 109 | Rate Template - LCAT Descriptions | The description provided for the Deputy Project Director appears to be a duplicate of the one provided for the Science Review Manager. | |||
| QUESTION — As this is a key personnel position, can the Government either confirm or provide a corrected description for this role? | Response - The rate template has been updated to include a corrected description. | ||||
| 110 | Rate Template – CPFF | QUESTION — May offerors propose separate labor categories for positions allocated to T&M subcontractors, with ceilings (exclusive of the prime’s burdens and fee) based on the fully burdened rate billed by the subcontractor? | Response - Please reference response to Question 12 above. | ||
| 111 | RFP | Section I | "This solicitation includes DFARS Clause 252.242-7004 “Material Management and Accounting System”, typically an approved Material Management System (MMS) is required for vendors who produce inventory and manufacture products. It is not anticipated that during performance of the scope of work any materials would be purchased or manufactured that would be considered non-commercial. |
QUESTIONS — Will the Government consider removal of this clause from Section I of the RFP?
| If not, will the Government provide the specific materials or scope for which they anticipate an approved MMS would be required and also provide an example of the type of work which would require this? | Response - The clause will not be removed as the prescription for it applies. |
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 .