EDIF-IE_RFP_QnA FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 61 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK23R0041
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
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
| Document Section | Question/ Comment | Answer | Document change | Pending Input From / Completed By | |
| 1 | Section L.2.10, page 69 | Section L.2.10 states the following: "The Government will provide responses to these questions via the Government Point of Entry in which the solicitation was posted or email to all Offerors. All questions regarding the solicitation shall be submitted in writing, via email, to the EDIF-IE solicitation Primary and Alternate POCs identified within Section L, NLT 1400 hours EDT 5 calendar days after the solicitation issue date annotated on the SF 33 coversheet." Based on the SF33 date of May 18, questions would be due May 23, 2023. |
| Will the Government please clarify that questions are due May 26, 2023 as posted on SAM.gov? This due date will enable offerors to conduct a comprehensive review of the solicitation and attachments. | Questions are due May 26th at 2PM. Solicitation Amendment 0002 has been issued to clarify the due date for RFP questions. | No change | ACC | |||
| 2 | Can you tell me if there is an incumbent? | This requirement is a consolidation of several contracts. The consolidation determination was included with the solicitation documentation which includes the current incumbent contractors. | No change | RA | ||
| 3 | My question is this, is there a work around that allows us to bid on this RFP without a TS FCL, knowing that our three subcontractors all have the TS FCL? | The Facility Clearance (FCL) is required in order to facilitate award to a company that can be issued a TS DD254 immediately upon contract award. The Prime contractor must have a TS FCL in order to receive the TS DD254 and hire/assign personnel to TS functions required by the contract as well as to be capable of issuing TS DD254s to their subs should their subs be assigned TS work. Absent the Prime having a TS FCL, a TS DD254 cannot be issued and the contractor could not be issued the EDIF-IE DD254 authorizing their performance of TS functions. |
| Although the subs have TS FCLs, this is not helpful as the Govt has no privity of contract with subs and cannot issue a subk DD254. The award must go to the prime and the prime must have the immediate ability to both receive a TS DD254 and begin TS performance upon award. | No change | RA | ||||
| 4 | Pg. 97 | M.4.4.2.1 | 1st Para. | Is greater weight in the relevancy determination given to the prime's management of +35 FTEs for similar contracts than for a subcontractor/teammate? | The Government will evaluate an Offeror's Past Performance submission relative to risk associated with Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements (see W900KK23R0041, L.4.3 and M.4.4). Distinction between Past Performance as a Prime or Major Subcontractor is not distinguished in the solicitation. Past Performance will be evaluated solely relative to the criteria set forth in the solicitation. Offerors are encouraged to submit Past Performance that meets relevancy and recency criteria as stipulated in the solicitation. | No change | RA | |
| 5 | Pg. 98 | M.4.4.2.1 | 2d Para. | Per the reference to 5.2.1.3, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3.2, is the government requiring that each of the past performance citations comprehensively address one, or more of the references, as well as demonstrated +35-FTEs, to be considered relevant? | Yes. PWS paragraph references in Sections L.4.3.2 & M.4.4.2.1 of solicitation amendment 0003 have been changed to reflect the High Level Function paragraphs from the IDIQ PWS in Solicitation Amend 0003 |
| section L & M of the solicitation has been updated | RA | ||||
| 6 | Pg. 99 | M.4.4.2.2 | Table 4 | Does the government consider conforming work performed by the prime to be of greater relevance than work performed by a subcontractor/teammate? | Please see response to question 4. | No change | RA |
| 7 | General Comment on Past Performance | Given this is an IDIQ and we would expect to see multiple, discrete task orders varying in size (value), we believe the relevancy requirements stated in the referenced sections do not provide a fair comparison - given the ceiling is projected at ~$48M. Would the government consider revising the criteria to better reflect the more likely capabilities of the target 8(a) community under the $15M NAICS? | PP relevancy criteria (see W900KK23R0041, L.4.3.2 and M.4.4.2.2) is not tied to total contract value over the life of the contract (i.e., "~$48M") rather, it is tied to the degree to which an Offeror's PP is recent and relevant to the performance requirements of the solicitation. | No change | RA |
| 8 | General Comment on Past Performance | To clarify the relevancy assessment, would a $4.5M direct award contract for a prime that includes curriculum development as a primary output/deliverable, assuming favorable CPARS, meet the criteria for relevancy as stated in the solicitation? | Please see response to question 7. | No change | RA |
| 9 | Attachment 1 - IDIQ; 1.5.6 Place of Performance | Are there any positions for the Required Activities will not be performed within Government Facilities (i.e. offsite)? This information will be helpful for us to figure out how big a facility we need to house employees working Offsite. | The cost price workbook states the PMO Task Order and the sample project Task Order will be executed offsite. It is up to the offeror to determine their technical approach to meeting the PWS requirements and whether the assigned personnel will work onsite or offsite for the RA task order and any future task orders. | No change | RA |
| 10 | Attachment 1 - IDIQ; 1.5.6.2 Offsite/Contractor Facility Work Locations | Will off site employees be able to work from home? | Offerors are not limited from proposing a remote workforce that would include home-based employees. However, pursuant to the evaluation criteria identified throughout M.4.1 , Offerors must clearly demonstrate how any proposed approach will be advantageous to the Government mission while meeting the evaluation criteria. Please also see section L.4.1 of the solicitation. | No change | RA |
| 11 | Attachment 1 - IDIQ; 1.5.6 Place of Performance | Will "onsite" employees be provided office space? | Yes - the on-site workforce associated with the winning proposal will perform in Government provided office space. | No change | RA |
| 12 | Attachment 1 - PWS IDIQ; Historical Workload data; page 62 | What does CME stand for in the Estimated column? Can we assume that a similar level of effort will be consistent going forward and these numbers are valid for the Required Activities pricing? | CME = Contract Man-year Equivalent. Offerors may interpret CME synonymously with the Contractor Full Time Equivalent (CFTE) acronym. | No change | RA |
| 13 | Attachment 11 - Cost Price Workbook; Instructions tab; General section | "2. Service Contract Reporting, Technical Data/CDRLs and Contractor Acquired Property CLINs will not be separately priced but the CLIN and requirement will be in the base IDIQ and each task order. Pricing for these Items will be associated with PMO Task Order." Since we are unable to enter prices/numbers for this into the Task Order 0001 PMO tab of the spreadsheet, does this mean that the customer will developing this number and providing it to the contract recipient? | No, the cost associated with these tasks shall be included in the PMO Task Order labor. | No change | ACC |
| 14 | Attachment 11 - Cost Price Workbook; Task Order 0001 PMO and Sample Project Task 0003 tabs | Is it expected that the PMO function and Project Task Order execution will be performed off site? This question is based on the fact that "off" is populated in the onsite/offsite column)? | PMO functions will be performed offsite. The Sample Project Task is defined as offsite for solicitation evaluation purposes. The Requiring Activity PWS is for the offeror to determine how they will perform this task. | No Change | RA |
| 15 | Attachment 11 - Cost Price Workbook; Sample Project Task 0003 tab | "1. Offerors shall price … The TO will include a base year and four options years…" Is this correct or was this just copied from another cell? Should it only be for 1 time period? The Sample Project TO Spreadsheet only has one column. | the instructions have been corrected the Cost/Price workbook. Task Orders 0001 and 0002 should be priced for a base period with four option years. The Sample Project Task order is for a 9 month period of time, and will only be used for evaluation purposes and not awarded. The C/P workbook has been updated to reflect this change. | C/P workbook updated | RA |
| 16 | Attachment 11 - Cost Price Workbook; Sample Project Task 0003 tab | Please confirm the period of performance/expected duration of this task is 9 months. | Confirmed - the Sample Project duration is not to exceed 9 months. | No change | RA |
| 17 | Attachment 11 - Cost Price Workbook; Sample Project Task 0003 tab | What is meant by "Profit add percent in block 130D" that is written in row 86, column A? Should this read 86D? | The Cost/Price workbook has been revise to reference the correct cell for Profit/Fee percentage. | C/P workbook updated | ACC |
| 18 | Attachment 11 - Cost Price Workbook; Indirect Rates tab | What is the definition of Material Handling? | The Offeror may have in place a Material Handling Overhead rate as part of their indirect rate structure. |
DCAA has guidance and tools available: information for contractors is a great guide found on this page: https://www.dcaa.mil/Guidance/Audit-Process-Overview/
| and great information for small business found on this page: https://www.dcaa.mil/Small-Business/ | No change | ACC | ||||
| 19 | Attachment 13 - Pre Award Survey Checklist; general | If we have not had an DCAA audit, can the offeror help us obtain one? | The Government can assist with this process if needed, that is why the solicitation attachments 12 & 13, SF 1408 are required to be completed. The form is need to initiate the DCAA evaluation. | No change | ACC | |
| 20 | Amendment 0002; page 9; Section L4.1.4; 3rd paragraph | “Identify each proposed team member by company name, company address,…” Is it appropriate to put TBD for the work locations if we have not yet secured a facility for this contract? | While permitted, the Government cannot define in advance the degree to which such information would impact the evaluation of the Offeror's proposal. The Offeror must clearly articulate an approach satisfying all criteria and performance location may have varying degrees of importance based on an Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy Government requirements. |
| The 3rd paragraph has been deleted and combined with L.4.1.5. as that is where it most appropriately aligned. | Updated Section L.4.1.4 and L.4.1.5of Solicitation Amendment 0003. | RA | ||||
| 21 | Amendment 0002; page 14; Section L.4.4.6.1 – Direct labor rates | "In the event an employee has not been assigned, the Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate …” For many of the listed positions, we do not have any current or past employees performing similar roles. Therefore, we do not have any actual rates. Our rates will be based on market research. Is this acceptable? | Yes | No change | RA | |
| 22 | General | Any estimate of how many Project Tasks (similar to the sample provided) may be issued in a year? This would help us to size our support staff. | The Government does not have an estimate of projects that may/may not be performed in a given year. | No change | RA | |
| 23 | Amendment 2 RFP section M.4.4.2.1 | " Relevant efforts should be of the same or similar efforts as compared to this work effort in that they are: a) Contracts in support of services managing a workforce in excess of 35 Full-Time Equivalent Contractor personnel required to have and maintain a security clearance (ranging from a Secret to Top Secret and Specialized Compartmentalized Information).; " As this is a small business category with revenue limits at $15m, Can a offeror subcontractor/ team's Mentor subcontractors experience be use for the 35 Full Time Equivalent? Are the requirements in this section limited to the prime offeror OR can subcontractor experience count as relevant past performance? | Please see response to question 4. | No change | RA | |
| 24 | Amendment 0002 – page 9 - Section L4.1.4 – 3rd paragraph –Amendment 0002 – page 14 – Section L.4.4.6.1 – Direct labor rates – | “Identify each proposed team member by company name, company address,…”“In the event an employee has not been assigned, the Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate …” We believe this statement is intended for current incumbents. New offeror, would NOT have an "average" rate to present. | Please see response to question 21 | No change | RA | |
| 25 | Amendment 0002 – page 9 - Section L4.1.4 – 3rd paragraph –Amendment 0002 – page 14 – Section L.4.4.6.1 – Direct labor rates – | “Identify each proposed team member by company name, company address,…”“In the event an employee has not been assigned, the Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate …” Is this statement referring to EDIF-IE_RFP_Attachment_03_PWS_EDIF-IE_RA+TO.pdf- Technical Exhibit 4's list of personnel and qualifications? Does the government want us to ID all of the individuals required in the TO? If so, would the government release the contact information for all incumbent employees who are currently successful in these positions. (In most transition of contracts, the new awardees will work to retain quality and experienced work force) |
a) No - The “Identify each proposed team member by company name, company address,…” reference is relative to teammates with whom the Offeror will be teaming (see W900KK23R0041, L.4.1.4). Solicitation will be amended to move this information under L.4.1.5 for clarification purposes.
b) “In the event an employee has not been assigned, the Offeror shall submit the most recent actual average rate …” reference is relative to the Offeror's cost price build (see W900KK23R0041, L.4.4.6.1). See also response to question 21. No - there is no expectation to identify by name all employees performing work under the TO. Also see L.4.1.1
| This requirement is a consolidation of several contracts. The consolidation determination was included with the solicitation documentation which includes the current incumbent contractors. | Change to Sections L.4.1.4 and L.1.5 of the solicitation amendment 0003. | RA | |||
| 26 | Key Personnel Page 11 | Will the USG facilitate upgrading otherwise qualified personnel with a TS clearance in order to meet the SCI requirement? | It will be the responsibility of the Offeror's Facility Security Officer (FSO) to process requisite security actions necessary to fulfill the performance requirements of this solicitation. This will include Visitor Access Requests (VARs), SCI read-on requests, Personnel Clearance actions, etc. If an Offeror has an employee not possessing required clearance level to perform assigned work, the FSO must initiate the necessary processes to upgrade the individual's clearance. When and where necessary, the Government will approve the requests that are submitted through the Government systems of record (e.g., DISS, ACCS, etc.) however, the Government will not be responsible to otherwise facilitate or support the duties and security responsibilities of an Offeror or their FSO. | No change |
| RA | |||||
| 27 | 1.8.1 Page 10 | Will attendance at unscheduled meetings, conferences and briefings be cost reimbursable? | Yes for CPFF Task Orders. No for FFP Task Orders. | No change | RA |
| 28 | 1.10.2 Page 12 | Please deconflict the role of the Government Liaison with the stated purpose of the PM and APM. | For purposes of contract execution, the Offeror PM and APM will be the principle liaison representatives possessing full authority to act for the Contractor on all matters relating to daily operation of this contract (see att01 "PWS_EDIF-IE_IDIQ," section 1.10.1 as well as att02 "PWS_EDIF-IE_PMO TO," section 5.2.2). The principal Government liaison for the APM and PM will be the Government COR. |
| With respect to "Liaise" generally, please reference att01 "PWS_EDIF-IE_IDIQ," section 1.10.2 and section 2.1). Also reference att02 "PWS_EDIF-IE_PM TO," section 5.2.6and att03 "PWS_EDIF-IE_RA TO," section 2.1. The Offeror will be required to liaise with Government leads in each area in support of quick and efficient technical clarification as necessary to perform mission. | No change | RA |
| 29 | PWS 4.3Materials: For any performance from a contractor’s facility, remote location and/or AWL |
(see sections 1.5.6.1 and 1.5.6.2 of this PWS), the Contractor will be responsible for all material requirements of its employees . Page 8 The PWS also provides requirements where the USG may require employees to work remotely, on holidays or on hours where access to the facilities may not be possible. Under those conditions will necessary work items be provided for employees who normally work on site? The Solicitation does not infer a Government requirement against an Offeror to perform work remotely in the section referenced by the question (i.e., sections 4.3 in att's 01, 02, and 03 [IDIQ, PM, and TO PWSs, respectively]). Rather, the Solicitation clarifies that Offerors will be responsible for any material costs associated with an Offeror's proposal to utilize off-site employees.
| With regard to potentially limited access to facilities (see att01 "PWS_EDIF-IE_IDIQ," section 1.5.5 and also att03 "PWS_EDIF-IE_RA TO," section 1.5.5), the Offeror will be responsible to coordinate with the COR regarding the potential disposition of the workforce on the affected days. In those instances wherein it is determined, required by the COR, in order to meet mission objectives, the Government will ensure the availability of necessary resources for those contract employees regularly performing on-site. | No change | RA | ||
| 30 | PWS 4.4 Vehicles and Equipment: For any performance from a Contractor’s facility, remote location and/or AWL (see sections 1.5.6.1 and 1.5.6.2 of this PWS), the Contractor will be responsible for all equipment requirements of its employees. Software will be compatible with government systems, cloud systems, and it will be the responsibility of the company to resolve any firewall issues. Page 28 | Please provide a list of software and systems security requirements necessary for compliance. Please specify a required level of CMMC certification to further ensure the integrity of those systems. | Currently the DoD CIO states that CMMC levels will not be a contractual requirement until the department completes its rulemaking to implement the program. That process is still ongoing according to their website, so no further information on CMMC level requirements is available (https://dodcio.defense.gov/CMMC/about/). |
Software Required:
1. Adobe Creative Cloud, within the last two current versions.
2. Microsoft Office. (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Outlook).
3. Webkit based web browser, preferably Microsoft Edge as this is the default browser for the Army Gold Master install.
4. CAC Middleware to access CAC protected websites.
| PWS's have been amended in paragraph 4.4 | IDIQ, RA and Sample Project support PWS's have been updated in paragraph 4.4 | RA | ||||
| 31 | W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002.pdf Page 7 of 25 L.4.0. Volume I - Factor 1 - Security Qualifying Criteria - Facility Clearance (Pass/Fail) | This requirement is asking for an active TS FCL at time of proposal submission. We currently have a Secret FCL, are currently being sponsored for a TS FCL, and our ISR contact info from DCSA can be provided to confirm. In addition, we had a TS FCL from 2019-2020 so there is no risk to the Government that we will be unable to get the TS FCL. Would the Government please consider removing this requirement, changing it to Secret FCL at proposal submission, or changing it to TS FCL required at contract start date? | The Facility Clearance (FCL) is required in order to facilitate award to a company that can be issued a TS DD254 immediately upon contract award. The Prime contractor must have a TS FCL in order to receive the TS DD254 and hire/assign personnel to TS functions required by the contract as well as to be capable of issuing TS DD254s to their subs should their subs be assigned TS work. Absent the Prime having a TS FCL, a TS DD254 cannot be issued and the contractor could not be issued the EDIF-IE DD254 authorizing their performance of TS functions. Please also see question 3. | No change | RA | |
| 32 | (Entire WD) EDIF-IE_RFP_Attachment_07_WageDetermination_2015-5720+rv+7 |
and
| Page 50/101, Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments of W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002_Conformed; WD listed for Attachment 7 | Please confirm Wage Determination (WD) 2015-5720 is correct for this effort. It is rare that "even" numbered WDs are issued for new or combined efforts. 2015-5720 hasn't been updated since 2020 and does not reflect the current minimum wage rate due to EO 14026, the newest H&W of $4.41 hour, nor the eleven paid holidays with the inclusion of Juneteenth. We believe that the "odd" numbered WD 2015-5719 Rev 19 is a better fit for this new combined effort as it appears to be updated as expected and frequently (WD revision history) and best reflects any changes in wage or benefits for the SCLS contingent. | The solicitation amendment 0003 has been revised to replace WD 2015-5720 with WD 2015-5719 Rev 19. | The WD attachment 7 of the solicitation has been updated | ACC |
| 33 | Page 18/101, Section I - Contract Clauses CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002_Conformed; clause 52.222-42 Statement Of Equivalent Rates For Federal Hires | |||
| MAY 2014 | Clause 52.222-42 indicates "In compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor ( 29 CFR Part 4), this clause identifies the classes of service employees expected to be employed under the contract and states the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were employed by the contracting agency subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.5341 or 5332". In accordance with the clause, please identify the classes of service employees along with the wages and fringe equivalents for each position. Also, please indicate the five-digit DOL WD labor code for any anticipated employee covered by SCLS (SCA) standards. | 52.222-42 has been filled in. This is not a wage determination and is for information only | This clause in Section I of the solicitation has been updated. | ACC |
| 34 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.3.2 (page 74 of 101)) | REQUIREMENT: L.4.3.2 Relevant Past Performance. The offeror shall provide Past Performance references that must be relevant to the efforts of the same scope complexity of the EDIF-IE Base requirements. Relevant efforts should be of the same or similar efforts as compared to work efforts that: a) Contracts in support of services managing a workforce of 35 Full-Time Equivalent Contractor personnel or more required to have and maintain a security clearance (ranging from a Secret to Top Secret and Specialized Compartmentalized Information). | ||
| QUESTION: Per 13CFR 125.8(e), "When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this section, a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract." Accordingly, we believe that holding the protégé in a SBA All Smalls Mentor Protégé approved Joint Venture to the minimum size standards of 35 FTE is in conflict with the CFR and should be revised accordingly. Will the government please review 13CFR 125.8(e) and revise the Past Performance requirement for an established MP JV? | Section L.4.3 of solicitation amendment 0003 has been amended to address this question. Please also see Question 5 | section L of the solicitation has been updated. | RA | |
| 35 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.3.4 (Section 3, pages 78-79)) | REQUIREMENT: Section 3 – Subcontractors. "Offerors shall provide...... The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number." |
QUESTION: In regard to "citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number", does the Government want Offerors to identify and cite applicable PWS subparagraphs across all four (4) of the PWSs provided (IDIQ PWS, PM TO PWS, RA TO PWS, and Project Sample TO PWS)? Would the Government consider specifically specifying which PWS and/or which portions of which PWS need to be referenced in order to cite the applicable work effort across the proposed subcontractors?
| L.4.3.4, section 3 of the solicitation amendment 0003 has been updated to address the PWSs that are to be discussed. | section L of the solicitation has been updated. | RA | ||||
| 36 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.3.4 (Section 5, page 79)) | REQUIREMENT: Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire. "For all contracts identified .....The offeror shall include a list as an attachment to this volume of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. ...." | ||||
| QUESTION: In regard to "including a list as an attachment to this volume of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire", does the Government want Offerors to include this list as an Attachment to Volume IV (Factor 4 – Past Performance) or as an embedded Word for Windows Table in Section 5 of Volume IV? | L.4.3.4 Section 5 of the solicitation states it shall be submitted as an attachment to the volume (III) | no change | ACC | |||
| 37 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.3.4 (Section 5, page 76 of 101)) | REQUIREMENT: Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire. "For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. ...." | ||||
| QUESTION: In regard to "sending the PPQ to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract", would the Government consider only requiring one PPQ respondent for PP reference due to workload requirements on the Government and the limited knowledge of the Government Contracting Activity on specific technical and programmatic performance considerations? | The Government understands the question but ask offerors to please follow the instructions provided in the solicitation. | no change | ACC | |||
| 38 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.3.4 (Section 5, page 76 of 101)) | REQUIREMENT: Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire. "For all contracts identified .........The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields for each POC sent a Questionnaire: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail sent to POC." | ||||
| QUESTION: In regard to "The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields for each POC sent a Questionnaire: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail sent to POC.", can the Government please clarify the requirement field for "Solicitation Number" - is this for the current EDIF-IE opportunity or is it the solicitation number of the Past Performance reference being submitted for PPQ input? | L.4.3.4, section 5 of solicitation amendment 0003 has been amended to remove solicitation number. | section L of solicitation amendment 0003 has been updated. | ACC | |||
| 39 | EDIF-IE_RFP_Attachment_11_Cost_Price_Workbook. "Task Order 0002 Req. Activity" worksheet. | CLIN 4004 Travel NTE (cell Y114) is $1,954,323, whereas the prior years is significantly less at less than $200K each. Is this an entry error or will there be that much more travel expected in Opt Year 4? | This was a data entry error and the travel amount for FY4 has been revised to reflect the correct NTE amount . Att 11 of the solicitation has been corrected. Please see updated cost/price workbook. | C/P workbook updated, TO 0002 tab | RA | |
| 40 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.1.0 (page 69 of 101)) | The instructions state we should submit through DoD SAFE. Would the government tell us when we need to send a request for the DoD SAFE access for the Offeror and our Major Subcontractors? | The proposal due date is June 22, 2023 at 2:00PM EDT. All proposal are due prior to this date and time. If you do not have a CAC to utilize the SAFE site, a code can be requested from the ACC- Contracting POC identified for this requirement. The code is good for 14 days from the date of issued and good for the submission of up to 25 files/8GB. Additional codes can be requested if the proposal submission is more than 25 files. Offerors are advised the SAFE restricts the maximum file submission to 8 GB. Chrome and Edge are recommended. Internet Explorer limits SAFE uploads to 2GB; therefore, it is not recommended. Offerors shall include the following information in the SAFE upload comments block: Offeror’s name, Solicitation number, primary and alternate points of contact (POC) (include name, email, and telephone number(s) for each POC). | no change | ACC | |
| 41 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.3.1 (page 73 of 101)) | Can we use TNR or Arial 9 for headers and footer font? | The Government has considered this question and asks offerors to please follow the instructions provided in the solicitation. | No change | ACC | |
| 42 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L..4.2 (page 76), L.4.3.4 [Section 4 2nd Par] (page 79 of 101), L.4.4.2 (page 80 of 101) and L.4.5.4 (page 83 of 101)) | Numerous volumes request that we provide the Teaming Agreements and JV Agreements (Vol 2, Vol 4,Vol 5 and Vol 6). Normally these documents are only required in the Administrative Volume. Would the Government consider removing this requirement from Vol 2, and 4 and only require it in Vol 6 Administration/General Information? | Each Volume of the solicitation is independently reviewed and/or evaluated. Please submit documentation and requested for each volume. | no change | ACC | |
| 43 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.2 (page 76 of 101) and M.4.2 (page 96 of 101)) | The RFP calls Section L.4.2 Volume III - Factor 3 - Project Support and M.4.2 Volume III - Factor 3 Project Plan. Would the government tell us which is the correct title for this section (Project Support or Project Plan)? | The Solicitation amendment 0003 has been revised to reflect Sample Project Support. Please refer to updated documents. | Section M of solicitation amendment 0003, Sample project support PWS and C/P workbook have been updated. | RA | |
| 44 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.4.4.1 (page 80 of 101)) | Requirement. The Offeror shall submit ....If that letter is more than a year old and the Offeror has a more current DCAA audit report commenting on the status of their accounting system, a copy of that report will also be submitted and included in the Proposal Volume V – Cost/Price......................." Question. If the DCAA audit report/letter is more than a year old is this acceptable? If not, what do we need to provided? | Please provide the letter. Depending on the date of the letter, it may be used to identify adequacy. The offeror SHALL still complete and submit the SF1408 in the event the letter and information is deemed too old to support an adequate accounting system. | No change | ACC | |
| 45 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.1.0 (page 69 of 101)) | Is there a file size limit for DoD SAFE? | Offerors are advised the SAFE restricts the maximum file submission to 8 GB. Chrome and Edge are recommended. Internet Explorer limits SAFE uploads to 2GB; therefore, it is not recommended. Offerors shall include the following information in the SAFE upload comments block: Offeror’s name, Solicitation number, primary and alternate points of contact (POC) (include name, email, and telephone number(s) for each POC). | ACC | ||
| 46 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section L.1.3 (page 69 of 101) and L.4.6.2 (page 83 of 101)) | Please clarify proposal validity timeframe. L.1.3 and L.4.6.2 have inconsistent language on this item. Is the "phase II" language in L.4.6.2 an error? | The language in Section L.4.6.2 of the solicitation is numbered incorrectly. It has been changed to L.4.5.2. Solicitation amendment 0003 Section L.1.3 language has been amended to clarify. Both L.1.3 and L.4.5.2 say 365 calendar days from proposal due date. | Referenced sections in L of the solicitation amendment 0003 have been updated. | RA | |
| 47 | EDIF-IE_Amend 0002 Conformed (Section M.3.2 (Page 91 of 101)) | Paragraph references PP adjectival rating scheme described in Table 1. Should this statement reference Table 5, for the Performance Confidence Assessment criteria? | Section M.3.2 of solicitation amendment 0003 has been updated to reflect correct table numbering. | Section M table 2 and 3 of solicitation amendment 0003 have been updated. | RA | |
| 48 | Project Sample Task Order PWS Attachment 7, Table 5-1 ICOE (DL) page 69 | Requirement: The table within attachment 7 of the Project Sample Task Order PWS, presents offerors with a column that appears to combine Interactively levels 3 and 4. Interactivity levels have different requirements associated with each and these requirements are used to aid in properly scoping the work. Question: Would the Government please clarify how many of the 13 hours are designated as interactively level 3 and how many hours are interactivity level 4? | The baseline requirement is for IMI level 3, but the contractor is not limited to only IMI level 3. | No Change | RA | |
| 49 | Project Sample Task Order PWS Attachment 7, Table 5-1 ICOE (DL) page 69 | Requirement: Project Sample Task Order PWS Attachment 7, Table 5-1 ICOE (DL) shows Interactivity Level with Times/hrs. (Est.) Question: In accordance with (IAW) TRADOC 350-70-12 (10 FEB 23) table 4-1, would the Government please indicate the level of fidelity and/or complexity they are looking for regarding Interactivity levels 3 and 4? | Para 4-3.a.(1).(d) and (e) of that same pamphlet explains the differences in interactivity levels in complexity. The contractor is encouraged to rely on their unique capabilities and competencies when developing their Project Plan relative to the requirements of the Sample Project Task Order. For example, 5.2.2.1.1 describes some expectations of the different interactive levels with regards to the product. | No Change | RA | |
| 50 | Project Sample Task Order PWS section 5.1, Basic Support, page 16 | Requirement: Project Sample Task Order PWS task 5.1 states, “…The AASCC IMI will be delivered via the government learning management system (GLMS) using Common Management Interface specification 5 (CMI5) and any required contractor provided extended reality systems for collaborative distributed learning, to include the use of tools to facilitate immersive environments, virtual interfaces, or virtual overlays within real world environments.” Question: Would the Government please provide more information regarding the Government Learning Management System (GLMS)? Specifically, what platform are they using (e.g., Blackboard.com, Google Classroom, Moodle, etc.)? | The GLMS end point is immaterial as the produced module compliance for interaction with the GLMS is verified under PWS section 5.2.2.1.3.1 as part of the CMI5 standard. | No Change | RA | |
| 51 | Project Sample Task Order PWS section 5.2.2.1.6, Storyboards | Requirement: Project Sample Task Order PWS section 5.2.2.1.6 states, “The storyboard shall provide explicit visual elements (graphics, video, structural location, etc.) and textual information (content, hyperlinks, menus, feedback, narration, etc.) including size and location on the screen to illustrate how the courseware will look, sound." Question: In order to properly scope this effort, it would be helpful if the Government provided previously approved/used Storyboards and Lesson Plans. Making changes to an existing product will take less man hours as compared to creating a completely new product. Would the Government clarify if previously approved storyboards and/or lesson plans will be provided and can be used in support of this effort? | The sample TO states the product is created from an initial interactive media document plan and that 14 prior modules will be reviewed to create the new product. Offeror is encouraged to refer to M.4.2.1 - the Government will be evaluating the feasibility, completeness, and innovativeness of the Offeror's Project Plan proposed to address the Sample Task Order requirements. | No Change | RA | |
| 52 | Section L.4.0.1, Page 71 (Security) | "If the CAGE Code provided for the Prime does not correlate to current valid required FCLs, no further review or evaluation will be completed the proposal will be deemed to have failed this requirement, is un-awardable and will not receive continued evaluation". Can the Government confirm that Joint Venture prime offerors with an uncleared Joint Venture CAGE Code will not be deemed to fail, pursuant to section 1629 of the 2020 NDAA, where the Joint Venture members are cleared for access and all members possess a minimum of a Top Secret FCL as accredited by DCSA at time of proposal submission? | Confirmed - as stated in section L.4.0.1 of the solicitation (see W900KK23R0041), the FCL requirement will not be leveraged as exclusionary criteria against the JV. The JV may rely on the security clearances of its members to meet the FCL requirements of the solicitation. As stated in the solicitation, all members of the JV must meet the security requirements of the solicitation in order to be considered eligible for award. | No change | RA | |
| 53 | Section L.3.1: Page 73 and Lines 41 thru 44 | Should the Cross Reference Matrix for Volume II and Volume III be in both volumes? Meaning, should Volume II contain both Volume II and Volume III's CRM? Should Volume III contain both Volume II and Volume III's CRM? | Section L.3.1 of solicitation amendment 003 has been revised to state Attachment 8 shall be submitted with Volume II, and Attachment 9 shall be submitted with Volume III. | section L reference is updated | ACC | |
| 54 | Section L.2.6: Table, Page 71, Row 5 of Table | |||||
| Section L.4.3: Page 77 and Lines 9 thru 10. | Does the Past Performance volume have no page limitations per contract or is it limited to 3 pages per contract? | The page limit has been updated in section L.2.6 of solicitation amendment 003 to reflect 3 pages per contract plus one additional page for an Executive Summary and one additional page for a Table of Contents for a total of 14 pages. Please see updated solicitation language of sections L.2.6 and L.4.3. | section L updated. | RA | ||
| 55 | Section L.4.3.4, Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire: Page 79 | Vendors typically request their Government customers complete PPQs multiple times a year. Our customer has expressed frustration with multiple PPQ requests and stated they spend a great deal of effort in providing detailed CPARs and would really like that to suffice. In order to reduce the burden on our Government customers for filling out PPQs, can the Government confirm that vendors can submit CPARs in place of PPQs? | Please see answer to question 37. | ACC | ||
| 56 | File Size Limitation on CWBS | Is there a file size limitation on submission of the CWBS? | No. the only limit is the Safe site limitation. See question 40 | no change | ACC | |
| 57 | Cost Price Worksheet, Task Order Tabs | Task Order 0002 (RA) and Task Order 0003 (Sample) both list CLIN 0002 "Requiring Activity Labor". On TO 0002, it lists the type as CPFF, which conflicts with the CLIN X002 PMO being list as FFP in Section B, Schedule of Services, within thee RFP. Can the government confirm the CLINs are correct for each Task Order Tab? | Task Order 0003 Sample Project Task, CLIN 0002 has been updated to reflect Sample Project Labor. |
Task Order 0001 is FFP, Task Order 0002 is CPFF and Task Order 0003 is FFP. The workbook is correct. NSP line items will be NSP when awarded.
CLIN 1001 from the IDIQ section B has been modified to state Requiring Activity Labor.
| The CLIN structure in the Cost/Price workbook is what will be awarded. | Section B updated. C/P workbook has been updated. | RA | ||||
| 58 | Cost_Price Worksheet, Instructions, TO 0003 | In the instructions tab, under Task Order 0003 Sample Project Pricing Row #1, it states "Task Order (TO) 0001 and will be awarded at time of the Base IDIQ award". According to Section L, Task Order 0003 Sample Project Task WILL NOT be awarded. Can the government confirm if this is a typo, and restate the instructions? | The reference to the cost/price workbook has been updated to reflect correct verbiage. The Sample Project Support Task Order is for evaluation purposes only and will NOT be awarded upon award of the IDIQ. | C/P workbook instructions updated. | RA | |
| 59 | L.4.4 Volume V-Factor 5 – Cost/Price and Attachment_11_Cost_Price_Workbook | Please confirm that The Primes Cost Price workbook shall incorporate any major subcontractor effort for each of the task orders submitted for evaluation, and that the Prime can Adjust the worksheet to reflect categories that are attributable to a subcontractor, i.e. the prime can add a column to reflect the Subcontractor Name for each category. (Major and Non-Major Subcontractor in the Labor Category Section). | That is correct. Major subcontractor only applies to the Past Performance Volume. For all other volumes the verbiage has removed Major subcontractor and is applicable for all subcontractors. See updated information in solicitation amendment 0003. | Section L updated, C/P workbook updated | ACC | |
| 60 | Solicitation, page 76, Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire | Will the Government accept CPARS in lieu of the PPQ? | Please question 37. | ACC | ||
| 61 | Page #11; Para 1.10.1; Attachment 01 PWS EDIF-IE IDIQ | Section 1.10.1 states "The PM or APM shall be available during core work hours 0900 to 1430 AZ time, Monday through Friday.". However, it does not state whether the PM and APM will be required to work onsite at a government facility at Fort Huachuca. But in the Pricing Worksheet, it says they are "offsite". Where is the work location for the PM and APM? | The PMO Task Order states performance is offsite in the cost price workbook. | No change | RA | |
| 62 | Page #11; Para 1.10.1; Attachment 01 PWS EDIF-IE IDIQ | Section 1.10.1 states "The PM or APM shall be available during core work hours 0900 to 1430 AZ time, Monday through Friday.". Since no historical workload data is available for these positions, will these positions be full-time positions under this new contract? | Offerors are free to propose a workforce disposition that best suits their capabilities and supports their planned approach. It will be the Offeror's responsibility to clearly articulate how the approach will be a value to the Government's mission while meeting all evaluation criteria. | No change | RA | |
| 63 | Section L.4.6.2: Page 83, Lines 32/33 of W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002_Conformed | This section states: "The Government requires the EDIF-IE be valid for at least three hundred and sixty-five (365) calendar days from the final, phase II proposal due date." There is no other mention of a phase II proposal. Is there a phase II or should this read "...final proposal due date?" | Please see response to question 46 | |||
| No addl Change | RA | |||||
| 64 | Section L.2.2, Page 70, Lines 48/49 of W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002_Conformed | This section states: "Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions of the proposal, including exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any." As an example, does the Government want Volume II separated into a document for the Program Management Plan and a document for the QCP to aid in rapid location of these portions of the volume? (with a combined page limit of 30) | Section L.2.3 of solicitation amendment 0003 has been updated to clarify that the documents for each volume shall be submitted in their native format. Please ensure the offeror includes the control copy as describe. | Section L.2.3 is updated. | ACC | |
| 65 | Attachment_02_PWS_EDIF-IE_PM+TO, Page 2, following section 1.5.4.3 | PM TO PWS states "The Following Paragraphs and their subparagraphs 1.5.5 through 1.24 from the BASE IDIQ can found in section 5.". The Base IDIQ PWS does not have Paragraph 1.24. Please confirm this should have stated "…1.5.5 through 1.23…" | RA PWS sections have been updated to clarify question reference paragraphs and what is included in section. | RA PWS paragraphs updated. | RA | |
| 66 | Attachment_02_PWS_EDIF-IE_PM+TO, Page 2, following section 1.5.4.3 | PM TO PWS states "The Following Paragraphs and their subparagraphs 1.5.5 through 1.24 from the BASE IDIQ can found in section 5.". Section 5 (marked as "Part 5") of the PM TO PWS does not appear to include the equivalent sections for 1.5.5 (Training Holidays) nor 1.5.6 (Places of Performance). Please verify the IDIQ PWS shall be the governing requirements for these topics. | Please see answer to question 65. | PMO PWS paragraphs updated | RA | |
| 67 | Attachment_03_PWS_EDIF-IE_RA_TO, Page 6, paragraph 1.5.7.4 | The RA TO appears to be missing paragraph 1.5.7.3 - it includes the preceding and following sections that are seemingly identical to the IDIQ PWS. Please confirm the IDIQ para 1.5.7.4 as noted on page 6 is actually 1.5.7.3. | The RA PWS 1.5.7.4 matches the IDIQ PWS. Reference to PWS section 1.5.7.3 has been added. | RA PWS updated. | RA | |
| 68 | Attachment_03_PWS_EDIF-IE_RA_TO, Page 2, paragraph 1.5 | Para 1.5 states "See Base IDIQ", but the following paragraphs 1.5.1 through 1.5.7.2, plus 1.5.7.4, are explicitly included (yet seem almost identical to the IDIQ PWS). Note that paragraph 1.5 in the Base IDIQ is just a header for the subsequent subparagraphs, labeled "General Information". Please confirm the RA TO PWS sections under 1.5 take precedence for the included paragraphs (where any actual differences exist). | Confirmed - the RA TO PWS sections will take precedent for work requirements specific to the RA support requirements. | No change | RA | |
| 69 | Attachment_01_PWS_EDIF-IE_IDIQ, Page 38, Technical Exhibit A, Performance Requirements Summary | The IDIQ PWS PRS table includes Performance Requirements for PWS paragraphs numbered at the fifth level (e.g. 5.2.1.1.1) that do not exist in the IDIQ PWS, but do exist in the RA TO PWS. Please confirm these PRSs do not apply to the IDIQ PWS. | Confirmed - those PRS references were not applicable to the IDIQ PWS. |
Upon further review, it was determined there were several incorrect references between PWS paragraphs and PRS tables and further, it was determined that PRS tables were unnecessarily and redundantly repeating verbiage already included within Section 5 of the referenced PWSs.
| In an effort to streamline the PWS, avoid redundancy, enhance clarity, and improve ease of reading, the Government has aligned all PRS references/numbers within Section 5 of the PWS where the already stated Standards and Acceptable Quality Levels are identified. The Methods of Surveillance (MoS) have also been added to the PRS references. | Please see updated Section 5 of all PWSs. | ACC | |
| 70 | Attachment_04_PWS_EDIF-IE_Project+Sample+TO, Page 5, following from para 1.5.7.4. | The following text is placed after the para 1.5.7.4 text: |
First Sentence: "1.6 -1.6.1 The Following Paragraphs and their subparagraphs found in the BASE IDIQ.
Second Sentence: 1.5.7 through 1.8 are managed on the PMO Task Order."
Section 1.6.2 then follows, which seems to align with the first sentence. The second sentence is partially in disagreement with the tailoring for the paragraphs 1.5.7, 1.5.7.1, 1.5.7.2, and 1.5.7.4 found in the previous pages.
The second sentence is found again on the next page, which then also includes para 1.8 (and its subparas) for specific tailoring, though they appear identical to the IDIQ paragraph 1.8.
| Please clarify the wording around which paragraphs apply from the IDIQ PWS vs the ones tailored in the Sample TO PWS. | Solicitation amendment 0003, Att 04 (PWS_EDIF-IE_Project Sample TO") has been amended for clarity. | Updated att04, Project Sample PWS. | RA | |||
| 71 | Attachment_04_PWS_EDIF-IE_Project+Sample+TO, Page 25, para 5.2.2.1.2.1 (subpara b.1) | States "Requirements adhere to COLS requirements stated in 5.2.1.1.4." Should this and other references to 5.2.1.1.4 be to para 5.2.1.2.4 "Checks on Learning (COLSs)"? Similar for all references to 5.2.1.1.x should instead be to 5.2.1.2.x? | Confirmed - all such references should have referred to Section "5.2.1.2.4.". The Sample Project Support Task Order PWS has been updated to clarify information. | PWS has been updated | RA | |
| 72 | EDIF-IE_RFP_Attachment_11_Cost_Price_Workbook | Tab Task Order 0002 Req. Activity | Is the CLIN 4004 travel plug of $1,954,323 correct? | Please see response to question 39. | No addl Change | RA | |
| 73 | W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002 | Page 82, Para L.4.4.8 | "The Subcontractor shall submit the same workbook and associated cost information as the prime Contractor and shall conform to the same requirements listed in this solicitation." |
| Is this paragraph intended for "Major Subcontractors" or ALL Subcontractors? | See question 59. | No addl Change | ACC | |||
| 74 | W900KK23R0041_EDIF-IE+Amend_0002 | Page 81/82, Para L.4.4.6.1 3rd paragraph | Can the contractor provide the actual final DCAA rate letters in lieu of the detail being asked? | No, please submit one of the 3 methods of supporting documentation presented in Solicitation Section L.4.4.6.1 paragraph 3. | no change | ACC |
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 .