The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
BEST MAC –RFP - W900KK-24-R-0007 – Q&A
| No. |
| Industry Question |
| RFP Section |
| Govt Answer |
| 1 |
| In the Government’s DRFP responses indicates, "Section L.3.2.2 has been revised to “The Offeror must address one of the following two subfactors." |
Section L.3.2.1 states, "The offeror shall fully address at least One (1) of subfactors (subfactor 1.1 or 1.2) below.
Are we correct to assume that the Government will only accept one response to one of the two subfactors per Lot 1 (Subfactor 1.1, 1.2) and Lot 2 (Subfactor 2.1, 2.2)? The option to respond to both subfactors per Lot 1 and Lot 2 is not acceptable (within the Government's stated page limits)?
| L.3.2.1 & L.3.2.2 |
| The offeror can address either one of the subfactors or both of the subfactors for each proposal against LOT 1 and/or LOT 2. Only one need be found acceptable for each lot. In either case, the page limit remains the same regardless of whether the offeror addresses one or both subfactors. |
| 2 |
| L.3.b states: Table of contents are excluded from the page count. No more than three (3) of 11x13 foldouts. Executive Summary may be included in Volume II and is considered to be part of the page count. |
The DRFP Q&A No. 11 states: The Govt will update section L to allow no more than 3, 11x17 foldouts per Volume II, Factor 1, Technical.
L.3 has been revised: Table of contents are excluded from the page count. No more than 3, 11x17 foldouts Please confirm the page size should be 11x17.
| L.3 b. |
| RFP updated to allow Volume II to include no more than 3 pages of size 11x17. |
| 3 |
| Will the Government please clarify if our TESS experience is limited to the past 5 years? |
| L.3.2.2 b |
| L.3.2.2 b does not limit the TESS experience years. |
| 4 |
| Will the Government please clarify if TESS experience related to the ordering of Small Arms Transmitters (SATs) can be included? If so, will the Government please provide instructions as to which TESS product lines it would fall under (i.e., dismount or vehicle)? |
| L.3.2.2 b |
| L.1.1 has definitions of all TESS products and TESS categories (dismount/SLM/Vehicle/STE-based). SATs belong to Dismount TESS. |
SOW section 1.1 has definition of all TESS products that will be included in this RFP.
| 5 |
| The current due date listed, 02 Sep 2024 (Monday), happens to fall on the Labor Day Holiday. Would the Government consider modifying/extending the deadline to end of the week 06 Sep to accommodate? |
| Section 9 |
| The Govt will modify the due date to 05 September 2024 Same Q.21 & 28 |
| 6 |
| This paragraph states that the Government will answer questions three days before the proposal due date. Typically, three days before the proposal is due to the Government, the response is in final edit. |
QUESTION: Does the Government anticipate providing an extension to the due date concurrent with the government response? If not, we request the Government respond to questions ten (10) days before the proposal due date.
| L.1.2 |
| The new proposal due date is September 5th and the Government anticipates the contractor will have more than three days to adjust for the Q&A’s. The Government will not change section L.1.2. |
| 7 |
| Will the Government allow offerors to submit CPARs in lieu of PPAQs? |
| L.3.3.2 |
| No, all offerors must follow the directions in the RFP. CPARs cannot be submitted in lieu of PPAQs. Both PPAQ and CPARS will be evaluated. When evaluating Past Performance, the Contracting Officer is using the FAR 15.304 for the PPAQ is using FAR 9.1 when performing a Responsibility Determination, which includes CPARS IAW FAR 9.104-6. |
| 8 |
| Section J lists Attachment 5 as the LT2 portal access; however, the attachments provided with the RFP do not contain Attachment 5. |
QUESTION: Should Attachment 6 be named Attachment 5, or is there another LT2 portal document?
| Section # J - Attachment 5 & 6 |
| The govt will remove the attachment 5- LT2 portal since it is irrelevant to this RFP. |
| 9 |
| The RFP does not describe when we should obtain access to the LT2 portal. |
QUESTION: Will this be done before or after award?
| ATTACHMENT 5 LT2 Portal |
| The govt will remove the attachment 5- LT2 portal since it is irrelevant to this RFP. Specific DO’s will provide the LT2 portal access instructions when required. |
| 10 |
| RFP paragraph L.3.4.7 states, "Offeror shall include a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions. Any objection, exception, contingency, or addition shall be cross-referenced to the applicable solicitation paragraph(s). As part of this letter, an authorized official shall sign certifying the following: 'Regardless of the involvement in evaluations, all requirements of the Base and Delivery/Task Order SOWs/PWSs will be met.'" |
QUESTION: Would the Government please clarify the statement, "...as part of this letter...," as there is no letter referenced before or after this requirement? Would the Government accept our certifying statement as part of our signed proposal cover letter?
| Section # L.3.4.7 |
| Wording has been updated in RFP for clarity, changes in red. |
“As required by the Best MAC RFP, the Offeror shall include a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation or a detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions. Any objection, exception, contingency, or addition shall be cross-referenced to the applicable solicitation paragraph(s). Additionally, s part of this letter an authorized official shall sign certifying the following:”
| 11 |
| RFP Section M.1 states, "Multiple awards may be made as a result of this RFP in each lot." |
QUESTION: Would the Government please specify approximately how many awards it anticipates in each lot?
| M.1.b |
| Based on Market Research the Government anticipates between 10 to 15 qualified vendors for both lots. However, number of awardees will depend on the outcome of the evaluation of proposals and the number of Responsible offerors that are qualified for award.” |
| 12 |
| Please confirm if the offeror responds to both of the products in LOT 2 Subfactor 2.1 (TESS M10 Booker and non-laser SLM) while staying within the page limit, will this be considered non-compliant given the verbiage of "For Subfactor 2.1, the Offeror only needs to address either (1) new TESS kit based on an existing IMILES; or (2) new TESS kit based on emerging STE LTS TESS" ? |
| L 3.2.2 |
| The offeror can address either one of the subfactors or both of the subfactors for each proposal against LOT 1 and/or LOT 2. Only one need be found acceptable for each lot. In either case, the page limit remains the same regardless of whether the offeror addresses one or both subfactors. |
| 13 |
| Would the Government remove clause 252.237-7014 Loss or Damage (Count-of-Articles)? This clause is only for laundry and dry-cleaning services to be provided on a count-of-articles basis, which is not applicable to this scope of work. |
| Section I |
| Concur-Government will remove Clause 252.237-7014 |
| 14 |
| Can the Government please confirm that contract award is expected for 4Q Government Fiscal Year (GFY) 2024 or 2Q GFY 2025 as stated in the August 13 PALT? |
| F1 |
| The Government is anticipating end of 1st Q FY 25 or 2nd Q FY25 for contract award. |
| 15 |
| In SECTION L 3.2.1 and M3.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1.1, Texas is listed as the location to refurbish 10,000 IWS kits. |
Will the Government provide additional context for this specification. We would like to understand if the intent is for the Government to provide a facility in Texas (at a government site) for the contractor to conduct the equipment assessment and refurbishment.
| L 3.2.1 and M3.2.1 |
| Texas is a location for clarity of the response. The offeror needs to describe its approaches to refurbish 10,000 IWS located in Texas. The offeror is free to make assumptions in its proposal as where it will perform its work. |
| 16 |
| For the purposes of formulating a response, should the contractor assume that the 10,000 IWS Kits consist of an H-Harness and Halo only? Or should we assume that we are also performing SLEP on the Small Arms Transmitter (SAT)? |
| L3.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1.1, a |
| Vendor should state its approach on SLEP of an IWS kit. This is an approach, not a detailed design solution. The offeror is free to assume the IWS to include or not include SAT. |
| 17 |
| Should the contractor assume that 10,000 IWS Kits referenced in this task are inoperable? |
| L3.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1.1, a. |
| The Government is looking for the approaches to refurbish IWS kits, to include both inoperable and operable kits. The majority of IWS kits are available and currently used for training. The Government does not look for not specific design solution. The offeror is free to make assumptions about the state of the IWS that support its proposed approach |
| 18 |
| Will the Government consider revising the instructions for LOT 1 to include a statement similar to that found in LOT 2. Specifically, we propose adding the following: "The Government is not looking for a specific design and the response will be evaluated with the understanding that the offeror does not have the IWS technical data packages. The focus is on the approaches, processes, and methods." |
| M.3.2.1 LOT 1 - TECHNICAL FACTOR, SUBFACTOR 1.1. |
| No, the Government will not revise the statement. It has been clearly stated: in M.3.2.1 Lot 1: “To receive an Acceptable rating, the Offeror shall describe a feasible and complete approach describing how they would refurbish existing Individual Weapon System (IWS) kits assuming the task is to refurbish 10,000 Individual Weapon System (IWS) kits located in Texas. Provide a detailed description regarding its approach to each of the following:” |
| 19 |
| The asterisk below the table states "No more than three (3) of 11x13 foldouts." We respectfully request the Government consider updating this specification to "three (3) of 11x17 foldouts" to allow for the use of standard Tabloid size sheets of paper. |
| L.3 PROPOSAL VOLUMES, Table L.1. Volume Titles and Contents (Pg. 71) |
| RFP updated to indicate… “No more than three (3) of 11x17 foldouts.” |
| 20 |
| The asterisk below the table currently states that "Table of contents are excluded from the page count." We respectfully request the Government consider extending this exclusion to also encompass Acronym Definition Tables. This adjustment would allow for a more comprehensive presentation of information without impacting the substantive content within the page limit. |
| L.3 PROPOSAL VOLUMES, Table L.1. Volume Titles and Contents |
| No, the Government considered the requests, but have determined to leave them as is |
| 21 |
| The current solicitation due date of Monday, September 02, 2024, coincides with the Labor Day holiday. Given this conflict with a federal holiday, we respectfully request the Government consider extending the due date to Monday, September 9, 2024. This extension would ensure all parties have adequate time to prepare and submit their proposals without disruption from the holiday. |
| SF 33, Block 9 |
| The Govt will modify the due date to 05 September 2024. Same Q.6, 21 & 28 |
| 22 |
| Can the government confirm that the column labeled "CAGE Codes/ UID" should read, "CAGE Codes/ UEI" where UEI = Unique Entity Identifier? |
| L.3.1.1 OFFEROR SUMMARY TABLE, Table L.2 - Offeror Summary (Pg. 72) |
| RFP corrected to indicate “CAGE Codes/UEI” |
| 23 |
| ”No more than three (3) of 11x13 foldouts” |
This is not a standard size, does the Government mean 11x14?
RFP revised to indicate “three (3) of 11x17 foldouts”
| 24 |
| Asterisk for Volume II states: “Table of contents are excluded for the page count.” |
Q: Is the Table of Contents excluded from the page count in all volumes?
| L.3. (b) |
| RFP revised to indicate “Table of Contents are excluded from page count in all Volumes” |
| 25 |
| L.3.3.2 states PPAQs are due “no later than the proposal due date; Attachment 3 states “no later than 15 days after receipt of request or (insert date)” |
Q: When are the PPAQs due?
| L.3.3.2 |
| Attachment 3 revised to state “no later than the proposal due date 9/5/2024” |
| 26 |
| “Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding” |
Q: Please clarify for Volume III. Since “Section 2” page 75, appears to be different than L.3.3.1 and has different requirements. Request clarification on numbering for Section L.3.3 if “Section 2 – Performance should be identified as “L3.3.1” in the proposal. If it is not, the numbering will not match.
| L.3.3 |
| Section L.3.3.1 - Volume III, the volume shall be organized into sections. There is no specific number structure for L.3.3.1, Section 2. The offeror should correlate Section 2 responses with the information in Section 1 – a) to j). |
| 27 |
| Does the Government have any requirements for the Letters of Consent? |
| L.3 (b) |
| ACC-O: If the offeror submits Volume III to include “Letter of Consents and commitment, Cure notices and show cause Letters”; these items will be excluded from page counts. |
| 28 |
| The RFQ currently closes on a Federal Holiday, Labor Day, after a weekend. Would the Government consider adjusting the date of RFP close? |
| Block 9 of SF33 |
| Due date extended to 05 September 2024. Same Q.6, 21 & 28 |
| 29 |
| How many large business and small business contracts does the Government anticipate awarding? |
| M.1.b |
| IAW FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) the Government intends to award a contract to each qualifying offeror. |
IAW FAR Part 2: Qualifying offeror, as used in 13.106-1 and 15.304, means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing ( 10 U.S.C. 3206(c)(4)).
| 30 |
| Will the Government allow past performance from a subcontractor on the Prime’s team? |
| M.3.3.d |
| No, RFP Section M.3.3.d that states “When assessing past performance, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the Offeror (prime/joint venture partners) as it relates to the solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of schedule and performance, including the Offeror’s record of: 1) Quality; 2) Schedule; 3) Management; and 4) Small Business Subcontracting.” |
FAR 15.305 (2)(vi) “For offerors that are joint ventures, the evaluation shall take into account past performance of the joint venture. If the joint venture does not demonstrate past performance for award, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture.”