Attachment 0001 BCTE Amendment 0002 Letter additional responses to Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-23-R-0009RFP
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 56 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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 Relates To: (RFP or Attachment #/Section #/Page # Question/Comment Government Response Section L, Paragraph L.2.7, Page 112 Amendment 1 changed the Volume I Page Limit to "Breakdown: Program Management/Technical as 20* + IMP (10) + IMS (10) (max. page size is 11 inches x 17 inches) + RMP (10) + CM (10) for total page count of 60 pages for Vol I." Based on having drafted our entire Volume I Response to the original Solicitation Section L&M, we suggest that these new suballocations overly restrict the PM/Technical section with a 20-page suballocation (there are far more requirements to address in this section compared to the IMP, IMS, RMP, and CMP sections). For example, considering that the IMP and IMS are inter-related, a combined 20 pages for both (and now at 11x17) is probably excessive.
| Will the Government please consider reverting back to just one page limit for Volume I (60 pages maximum at the aggregate level)? | Please comply with the chart on Section L.2.7 | |
| Section L, Paragraph L.3.1.b (Page 113) and L.3.1.c (Page 114) | Factor 1 Subfactor 2 (DO/TO 0001) and Subfactor 3 (CMP) both contain the requirement for Offerors to "describe their approach to effectively and efficiently manage their Resources, Events/Tasks, Phase In activities and Time/Schedule regarding program performance and staffing in support of multiple, simultaneous and complex efforts (i.e. exercises, test events, software version upgrades, help desk responsiveness, and technology/site refreshes), without negatively impacting development and activities. The Offeror shall also address how this approach addresses software configuration management of multiple software baselines, assuming 2 fielded versions and 1 development version." |
| Since Amendment 1 now constrains PM/Technical to just 20 pages, will the Government please consider removing this duplicative requirement from Subfactor 2? | The requirement remains unchanged. | |
| Row 251 in Amendment 1 Attachment 0001 Responses to Questions | The Government's response to Question 251 states "No, Government confirm that Glossaries/Acronym Lists are also excluded from page count." However, Section L, Page 112, Paragraph L.2.7 has not been updated to reflect this exclusion because it still states "*Table of Contents, Title Pages, Divider/Blank Pages, Teaming Arrangements, and PWS References (Section J, Attachment 8) are excluded from the page count." |
| Is the Glossary/Acronym List excluded from page count limits? | No, The Government confirms that Glossaries/Acronym Lists are NOT excluded from page count. Please comply with Section L.2.7. | |
| Row 211 in Amendment 1 Attachment 0001 Responses to Questions | In Amendment 1, the Government has decided to use plug numbers for Material Pricing. However, it is unclear if Plug Numbers are now being used for DO/TO 0001, the IDIQ, or both. For example, the related Q&A Responses state "Material CLINs have been updated for NTE amounts provided by the Government for TO 0001 only." However, the updated Attachment 10 Cost-Pricing Workbook has NTE Plug Numbers for CLINs 0008, 0009, 0010, and 0011 for both DO/TO 0001 and the IDIQ. |
| Can the Government please confirm that the revised Attachment 10 NTE Plug Numbers for both the IDIQ and DO/TO 0001 are to be used for final pricing? | Please refer to the updated L & M cost section and the attachment 10. | |
| Row 125 in Amendment 1 Attachment 0001 Responses to Questions | The Government's response to Question 125 says that the IMS, IMP, RMP, and CMP "should be attachments and not embedded". The word "attachment" is ambiguous. It can be interpreted as "Appendix within the same file" or as "Submitted as a separate file" (with either approach subject to the overall 60-page limit). |
| Can the Government please confirm that including the IMS, IMP, RMP, and CMP as Appendices within a single Volume I file (with a 60 page limit) is compliant with the Section L requirements? | Please comply with Section L.2.6 | |
| Rows 63 and 64 in Amendment 1 Attachment 0001 Responses to Questions | The Government's answers to Questions 63 and 64 state "Yes, the Delivery/TO IMS/IMP may be embedded within the IDIQ IMS/IMP within the same document. Just make sure it is identified accordingly." This implies that an IMP and an IMS are still required for DO/TO 0001. However. Amendment 1 deleted "DO/TO 0001" from the second sentence in Section L Paragraph L.3.1.a on Page 113 of the Solicitation document, which appears to contradict these Q&A Responses. This sentence now reads "The IMS and IMP shall cover the base period (36 months)." |
| Can the Government please clarify? | Section L Paragraph L.3.1.a has been revised to include DO/TO 0001 verbiage. | |
| Row 103 in Amendment 1 Attachment 0001 Responses to Questions | The Government's response to Question 103 states "2,080 is a realistic productive manpower effort in hours per year for one (1) Full-Time Employee (FTE)." 2,080 hours per FTE per year is high since it does not account for 2+ weeks of holidays and some weeks of Paid Time Off for Vacation/Sick Leave. |
| Can the Government please allow Offerors to bid productive labor hours in accordance with how they are disclosed to DCAA/DCMA relative to their forward pricing indirect rate structure? | The Government response to Question 103 remains unchanged. | |
| Task Order 0001 PWS, Section 9.1.2, pg 14, notes: | 9.1.2. The contractor shall provide labor and materials to install MS Teams capabilities to previously installed VTC hardware at the following 4 sites (may change based off operational need): |
a) Fort Carson, CO
b) Fort Drum, NY (Medium)
c) Gowen Field, ID (Medium)
d) Leavenworth, KS (Medium)
e) Ft Liberty (aka Ft Bragg), NC (Large)
f) Fort Sill, OK (Small)
g) Fort Stewart, GA (Medium)
h) United States Army Spec Ops Command (USASOC), Ft Liberty (aka Ft Bragg), NC (Small)
i) Schofield Barracks, HI (Large
| The 9.1.2 language notes the ‘following 4 sites’, however, lists 9 sites. Can the Government confirm that we are to provide labor and materials for installation of MS Teams capabilities at all 9 sites noted in a-i. | The Task Order 0001 and IDIQ PWS is revised and uploaded. | |
| Task Order 0001 PWS, Section 9.1.3, pg 14, notes: | 9.1.3. The contractor shall provide labor to perform BCTC-ES site surveys to the following 5 sites (may change based off operational need): |
a) Arlington Heights, Illinois (Medium)
b) Ellington Field, Texas (Medium)
c) Camp Atterbury, Indiana (Medium)
d) Ft Cavazos (aka Fort Hood), Texas (Large)
e) Grafenwoehr, Germany (new MCA)
f) Ft Knox, KY (Medium
The 9.1.3 language notes the ‘following 5 sites’, however, lists 6 sites. Can the Government confirm that we are to provide labor for BCTC-ES site surveys for all 5 sites noted in a-f.
| The Task Order 0001 and IDIQ PWS is revised and uploaded. | ||
| Section L.2.6 | , “The Risk Management Plan (RMP) (submitted in Volume I-Program Management) and the Configuration Management (CM) shall be submitted using the Microsoft Office Word and shall follow the paragraphs requirements above. These should be attachments and not embedded.” yet the answer to question #260 states, “Volume I is a total of 60 pages. No, the IMP, IMS, and RMP may not be provided as separate attachments.” Can the Government please clarify if the IMS, IMP, CMP, and RMP are to be separate attachments from Volume I or embedded within Volume I? | See Section L.2.6. The sentence “These should be attachments and not embedded” has been removed. |
question #66 (Previous) The answer to question #66 states “Verbiage has been updated to: "The Risk Management Plan (RMP) (submitted in Volume I-Program Management) and the Configuration Management (CM) shall be submitted using the Microsoft Office Word and shall follow the paragraphs requirements above.” Yet the answer to question #248 states, “Government confirms that all volumes shall be submitted via PDF with the cost file being excel. Cost narrative can be in PDF.” Can the Government please clarify if the narrative files for Volume I (excluding the IMS and IMP), II, III, and IV should be submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF? See Section L.2.6 and L.3.3 of the solicitation.
| questions #1 and 6 states (Previous) | In regards to the number of past performance citations that are allowed within the Past Performance volume, the answers to questions #1 and 6 states “No more than 3 Prime and/or 3 sub” yet the answer to question # 44 states “3 total Prime and or sub”. Can the Government please clarify if the maximum number of past performance references allowed is 3 or 6? | No more than 3 Prime and/or 3 sub. Refer to Section L.3.2 | |
| Attachment 7 BCTE Past Performance Questionnaire is a completely different document than the Attachment 7 provided with the original RFP. As the due date is only two weeks away, some of the PPQs have been sent to offeror’s customers to complete and sent to PEO STRI. Can the Government please confirm that you will accept the original Attachment 7 if it has already been returned to the Government? | The Original Attachment 7 is the correct version and is uploaded. The Government will accept either version of the past performance questionnaires. | ||
| questions #63 (Previous) | The answer to questions #63 states “Yes, the Delivery/TO IMS may be embedded within the IDIQ IMS within the same document. Just make sure it is identified accordingly.” and the answer to question #64 states “Yes, the Delivery/TO IMP may be embedded within the IDIQ IMP within the same document Just make sure it is identified accordingly.” yet section L.3.1.a within the Amendment 1 RFP was revised to remove DO/TO 0001. It now reads, “The IMS and IMP shall cover the base period (36 months).” Can the Government please clarify if the DO/TO 0001 is to be included within the IMS and IMP? | Refer to Section L.3.1.a. The verbiage is updated. | |
| In regards to whether subcontractor past performance is allowed if the subcontractor will be providing support but not have 15% or more of the total cost/price on this effort, the answer to question #5 states, “No, except as required by 13 C.F.R. 125.2.” yet section L.3.2 in the Amendment 1 RFP still states, “This includes all subcontractors who will be providing support or whose subcontract is for more than fifteen (15) percent or more of the total proposed cost/price.” | |||
| a) | Can the Government please clarify if subcontractor past performance is allowed if they will be providing critical support? | ||
| b) | If the subcontractor is providing support and therefore has included a past performance reference in the Past Performance volume, are they required to be priced as a major subcontractor in the Pricing volume? | Refer to Section L.3.2 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .