ATMP_RFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20161206.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-17-R-0034
About this file
ATMP RFP Q&A's as of 06 Dec 2016
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FINAL_ATMP_RFP_A0001_W900KK-17-R-0034_Mod_Copy_.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATMP_RFP_TOC_A0001_161128.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATMP_RFP_Amend_0001_Attachs.zip | ZIP file | |
| ATMP_RFP_Amend_0001_Attachs_TrkdChgs.zip | ZIP file | |
| ATMP_RFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20161123.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FINAL_ATMP_RFP_A0001_W900KK-17-R-0034_Conformed_Copy_.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATMP_RFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20161117.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATMP_RFP_Sect_J_Attach_1-20.zip | ZIP file | |
| ATMP_RFP_TOC_161109.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATMP_RFP_Sect_J_Attach_21-52.zip | ZIP file | |
| FINAL_ATMP_RFP_W900KK-17-R-0034.pdf | ||
| ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATMP_RFP_Sect_J_Attach_53-59.zip | ZIP file | |
| ATMP_DRFP_Q_And_A's_as_of_20160928.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATMP_Changes_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 17
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
RFP-Q&As-Q012-013
| RFP - Q# | Reference | Relates to: | Reference Text if applicable | Question | Response |
| 012 | Section I Contract Clauses (pg. 120) | FAR 52.215-23 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges (OCT 2009) | Does the Government intend to use the referenced contract clause exclusively for task orders other than those that are fixed-price (including all of the subtypes of fixed-price contracts identified by FAR 15.408(n)(2)(i)(B)(2)), or has the contracting officer alternatively determined, pursuant to FAR 15.408(n)(2)(ii), that it is appropriate also to use the clause “for any contract type” – that is, for all task orders, including not only cost-reimbursement and T&M type task orders but also all fixed-price type task orders? | IAW FAR 15.408(n)(2)(ii) the Contracting Officer has determined that inclusion of this clause is appropriate for this contract. | |
| 013 | Section L.4.0(b)(1) | What are offerors required to submit as part of Section L4.0(b)(1) Section A. SF 33- Solicitation/Contract Form and any subsequent amendments? | Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of all amendments by submitting a signed copy of the SF33 referencing any Amendments (block 14) AND all corresponding SF30's resulting from an Amendment. |
RFP-Q&As-Q007-011 RFP - Q# Reference Relates to: Reference Text if applicable Question Response
| 007 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | Final RFP | Section H.6 (D) | Please confirm the USG will recognize level of effort obligations when in support of a verifiable effort and in accordance with the approved company disclosure statements and policies. For example, this may include virtual meetings supported during transit, transit to support requirements, business meals and virtual work location assignments, all as approved by company policy and charged accurately. | This clause applies only to cost type efforts, which are not part of the proposals in response to this RFP. Generally speaking, the details will be worked out when these efforts are put on contract. However the Government will approve costs in accordance with cost accounting standards (CAS) and FAR Parts 30 and 31. | |
| 008 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | Attachment 58, Cross Reference Matrix | Section L.4.0(a)(7) | In order to reference the Volume, Section and Paragraph where each subfactor requirement is met, additional rows are needed to show where the individual requirements within the subfactor are depicted in the Offeror's proposal. Is it acceptable for Offerors to modify Attachment 58, Cross Reference Matrix, by adding additional rows to break down the subfactor requirements into more detailed requirements? | Additional rows are acceptable, but not additional columns. It is the offerors responsibility to ensure their matrix clearly shows traceability of requirements to their proposal. | |
| 009 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | Final RFP; L.6.3 / L.7.0 / M.8.3; | ||||
| Base PWS Page 31 of 89; Section 2.23 | Paragraph L.6.3. Management Subfactor 2.3 – Organic Army Depot Support, states “The Offeror shall describe how it will meet or exceed the minimum (5% of contract value per year) requirement for Army depot subcontracted work.” | 1. Does the Government intend to evaluate bidders' ability to demonstrate meeting this requirement by showing their depot allocated costs within the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and within the anticipated ceiling price of $3.5B, or can bidders' demonstrate their intent to meet the requirement in only allocating depot work in the anticipated Over and Above Work? |
2. Would the Government consider adding the following table to the RFP in order to verify proposal compliance and state whether the requirement needs to be demonstrated within the TEP? 1. The requirement is "...minimum (5% of contract value per year) requirement for Army depot subcontracted work." The offerors are advised that "only when directed…" work is not guaranteed.
2. The offerors are responsible for clearly communicating their depot approach in response to the depot subfactor; no particular format will be required. For purposes of this subfactor, "5% of contract value per year" is equivalent to 5% of the total contract value over the seven year ordering period.
| 010 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | Appendix B | Appendix B, PPSS, refers to attachment 4 as requiring PPSS. Attachment 4 is the FON map. Will an updated attachment be released? | Appendix B has been updated for the CTC TOs 02, 03, 04, and 05, changing the Attachment 4 reference to Attachment 5. | |
| 011 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | Attachment 01, Base PWS, Pages 31/32 of 49, Section 2.24 and 3.4 | The language in the Base PWS paragraph 2.24 states “…computer software, computer software documentation,…is finalized or a work-in-progress, hosted, maintained, or otherwise resident on the MIS is considered to be delivered to a Contracting Officer or otherwise furnished to the Government.” Paragraph 3.4 states “The Government does not intend to procure MIS hardware or software;…The Contractor shall provide license to the Government to use the Contractor’s MIS in accordance with the requirements of this PWS.” | 1. These paragraphs appear to be ambiguous as it relates to the Government’s intent and expectations regarding rights to the MIS itself and the associated documentation. Is the Government’s intent and expectation to be granted a Restricted/Limited license to use the Contractor’s MIS and related documentation for providing access rights to Government data generated under the contract during the Period of Performance only? |
2. Is it an expectation under this RFP that the Contractor’s MIS will not be delivered to, deliverable under, or otherwise furnished to the Government in any manner? 1. Correct. Also, IAW PWS 3.1.7.1 the Contractor's Phase-Out plan must include transitioning all technical data to the Government; and IAW PWS 3.1.7.5 all technical data is to be delivered to the Government annually starting 3 years prior to end of contract performance.
2. Para 2.24 has been edited to state: "All TADSS technical data, computer software and computer software documentation regardless of whether the technical data, computer software and computer software documentation is finalized or a work-in-progress, hosted, maintained, or otherwise resident on the MIS is considered to be delivered to a Contracting Officer or otherwise furnished to the Government. Note that the Government does not intend for the contractor to deliver MIS software to the Government...."
| Questions and Answers | ATMP RFP |
| W900KK-17-R-0034 | &P of &N |
RFP-Q&As-Q001-006
| RFP - Q# | Reference | Relates to: | Reference Text if applicable | Question | Response |
| 001 | FBO posting dated 26 Oct 2016 | Volume IV (Factor 3- Past Performance) | Additionally, Volume IV (Factor 3- Past Performance) has been removed and will no longer be part of evaluations | Per USD AT&L memo, 1 April 2016, Department Defense Source Selection Procedures, para 2.3.4.2.2, a past performance evaluation is required in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3), unless the PCO documents the reason Past Performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition (FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). Based on the above and with the removal of Past Performance as an evaluation factor, why is Past Performance not considered an appropriate evaluation factor? Will the USG maintain the Best Value proposal evaluation approach without Past Performance discrimination? | IAW FAR 15.304(c )(3)(iii), the PCO has determined evaluation of past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition and has documented appropriately, with concurrence of the necessary parties per the DOD Source Selection Procedures 2.3.4.2.2. The PCO does not find past performance to be a discriminator for award, nor would it likely change the award decision, therefore, it has been removed. |
| 002 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | VOL I General- L.4a.5 | "The Offeror and each major subcontractor shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations." | Please clarify what constitutes as "Major Subcontractor" for purposes of this procurement. | The Government inadvertently removed the definition of a major subcontractor. The following will be added to L.4(a) 5: a major subcontractor is defined as one that will be responsible for 10% or more of the yearly proposed ATMP value. |
| 003 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | VOL I General- L.4a.5 | "The Offeror and each major subcontractor shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations." | If an offeror or major subcontractor does not have an FPRA nor a FPRR from their ACO, would the Government accept a Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) to meet requirement of L.4a.5? | Submitting a FPRP is not necessary. The Government will add "if available" to the end of this requirement. |
| 004 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | VOL I General- L.4a.5 | "The Offeror and each major subcontractor shall provide their current FPRA or FPRR by their cognizant ACO in support of future negotiations." | With the removal of the Labor Rate Table from the ATMP DRFP, does the Government anticipate FAR 15.408-2 negotiated proposals for Additional Task Orders? This requirement could delay processing additional work on this IDIQ contract in a timely manner. | The Government is aware that there may be additional burden in negotiating post award task orders and efforts that may prolong negotiations. |
| 005 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | VOL V- Attachment 57 Pricing Workbook |
| TO 29 FMS-GRC | Attachment 57, Tab TO 29 FMS-GRC contains a hardcoded value in cell G74, which is marked as the Total for Ordering Period 7. Please clarify if this cell value is intended to be the Travel value for Item Number 6100, and correct cell G74 to include a summation formula for Ordering Period 7 subtotal. | Attachment 57 will be updated to convert the cell value to the Travel value for Item Number 6100 and add summation formula to cell G74. | ||||
| 006 | Final RFP posted 09 Nov 2016 | Appendix B | Locations Germany - Schinnen, Germany, Dal Din, and Germany - Ederle | Would the Government please confirm the countries of these locations? Schinnen appears to be in Netherlands while Del Din and Ederle appear to be in Italy. | Appendix B will be updated as follows: |
FROM: Germany-Schinnen TO: Netherlands-Benelux;
FROM: Germany-Dal Din TO: Italy-Del Din; and FROM: Germany-Ederle TO: Italy-Ederle
| Questions and Answers | ATMP RFP |
| W900KK-17-R-0034 | &P of &N |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .