Questions_Answer_Round_2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) - Integrated Operations for High Performance Computing Scientific, Engineering, Analysis, and Outreach Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W911QX-17-R-0008
About this file
Questions Answer Round 2
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FULL LIST
Question RFP Reference Question Answer
| 1 | In PWS_Task_Order_0001 under C.2.3.2 only one Management Analyst 3 FTE is specified (page 4). However, in EST_Lab_Cat_Hrs on the TTO 1 Estimated labor hours tab, it specifies two Management Analyst 3 FTEs. | Which would would you like us to use? | Document is updated |
| 2 | Reference Amendment 1, Section L, 2. Proposal Submission Requirements, Maximum Pages. Amendment 1 specifies that Volume III Past Performance/Subcontractor's Past Performance shall have a maximum of 30 pages. However, Section L, 3. Proposal Files, (iii) Volume III - Past Performance specifies that the volume shall not exceed 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. This instruction includes four sections: Section 1 - Contract Descriptions. Section 2 - Performance. Section 3 - Subcontracts (which includes requirements for narratives plus written consent and letters of commitment from subcontractors). Section 4 - New Corporate Entities. | Question: Please confirm that the maximum pages for Volume III are as follows: 25 pages for the prime offeror for Section 1 and Section 2 combined, 5 pages for each major subcontractor for Section 1 and Section 2 combined, and Section 3 and Section 4 are excluded from the page count. | Table Corrected 25 for prime, 5 each for subcontractor. Section 3 and 4 are not excluded from the page count. |
| 3 | 1. (Amendment 1/Page 11/Major Cost Element Section (a)) requires that Offerors conduct price analyses of all subcontractor proposals and conduct cost analyses of their subcontractors cost or pricing data when submitted by the subcontractor. It requires the following elements: |
Include these analyses as part of the cost or pricing data submissions for subcontracts expected to exceed the threshold in FAR 15.403-4 (i.e. $750K).
Further in section (a)(2)… Offerors shall provide a summary of the cost analysis and a copy of cost or pricing data submitted by the prospective source in support of each ...subcontract, or purchase order that is the lower of either $11.5 million or more, or both more than the pertinent cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10 percent of the prime contractor's proposed price.
| In Section (d), for major subcontractors and consultants providing labor services, Offerors are required to document its evaluation of the cost reasonableness and realism of the subcontractors or consultants’ cost and/or prices. | Will the Government please clarify these requirements as it is unclear as to when Offerors are required to perform a price and/or cost analysis? | |||
| To simplify these requirements, will the Government please consider removing the requirements for Offerors to perform subcontractor cost analysis (in lieu of price analysis), since it is reasonable to expect that the majority of subcontractors will not share their proprietary cost information directly with an Offeror? | This requirement is firm. | |||
| 4 | (Amendment 1/Section L(ii) Volume II-Cost/Price (1)/Page 9) states “Each Offeror's and subcontractor’s cost proposal shall be broken out by cost element as specified in FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 Section I, General Instructions, Part A”. | Since FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 Section I, General Instructions, Part A is general information. Did the Government intend to reference the FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 Section II Cost Elements? | Revised. | |
| 5 | (Amendment 1/Section L(ii) Volume II-Cost/Price (ii)(3)/Page 10) states “Estimated phase-in costs shall be included separately in the offerors cost proposal”. | Please confirm Phase In costs in this instance means ‘Transition Costs” i.e. the costs associated with the transitioning from the predecessor contract to the new contract. | There is no predecessor contract. This is a new award. Phase-in costs means the cost to onboard or phase-in. | |
| 6 | The terms “Letters of Commitment” and “Letters of Intent” are referenced throughout the RFP. | Please confirm that these terms are interchangeable and only one letter is required for prospective employees not currently employed by the entity submitting the proposal and one letter from companies designated as major subcontractors. | Letter of Commitment is required for Key Personnel only. Government removed reference of "Letter of Intent". | |
| 7 | (Amendment 1/Section L(ii) Volume II-Cost/Price (ii)(5) and M.4(1)(e)/Page 10)- states, “For evaluation purposes only and in determining probable cost for options in the out-years, wage determination rates shall be escalated 3 percent per year. However, if the offeror substantiates higher wage rates and justifies different escalation factors, those wage/escalation factors will be utilized.” | As confirmed by the Government’s answer to question 19, since SCA does not apply will the Government please remove this requirement? | Revised | |
| 8 | (Amendment 1/Section L, Proposal Submission, Page 5, ARL SAFE) | In order to upload files into the ARL SAFE system, it prompts the user for a code, |
please confirm what Offerors should use when prompted for a code when attempting to upload files?
Please confirm the maximum file size that can be uploaded is 8MB as posted on the website.
ARL SAFE – How will offerors know if their files have been successfully uploaded?
| Will a confirmation notification be provided? | Revised to ARMDEC Safe website at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe | |||
| 9 | (Amendment 1/Section L/Page 7/Proposal Submission Requirements)- | Please confirm that text boxes contained in the technical narrative are considered to be tables and/or illustrations. | Correct | |
| 10 | (Amendment 1/Section L/Page 7/Proposal Submission Requirements)- | Because we expect to have over 5 major subcontractors and need to include letters of commitment from each, will the Government permit 5 pages of past performance information (Volume III) for each major subcontractor, in addition to the 30 pages permitted for the prime offeror? | Revised to 25 pages for prime offeror and 5 pages for each subcontractors. | |
| 11 | (Attachment EST Lab_Cat_Hrs and PWS for TO1)- | There appears to be a discrepancy in LOE estimates between Attachment EST Lab_Cat_Hrs and the updated PWS for TO1. The estimated labor hours’ attachment lists that there are two (2) full-time Management Analyst 3s. However, in the PWS for TO 1, there is only one Management Analyst 3 listed. Please confirm how many Management Analyst 3 positions Offerors should propose, and if there are two (2) positions, in which sub-task is the second Management Analyst 3 labor category. | Revised | |
| 12 | (Attachment A01_Labor_Categories)- | Please confirm that a BS degree is equivalent to 4 years of work experience and vice versa? | Management Analyst will allow for substituting work experience for education. However does not apply to others. | |
| 13 | (Overarching IDIQ and Task Orders #1 and #2). | Please clarify the minimum clearance requirement for new project staff to work in these PWS areas is one of the following: |
Secret clearance, with the ability to obtain Top Secret, Top Secret (TS), with the ability to hold SCI if the client grants SCI as required for the job duties, or
| TS-SCI to start | TO 1 &2 is updated no change to base PWS. Minimum clearance requirement as stated are firm. | |||
| 14 | (Task Order #2, C.2.7/Page 9). | Please confirm that the staff identified in this section perform the tasks identified in C.2.7.1, in addition to the tasking identified in C.2.7.2. | Revised. | |
| 15 | C.16 Question 8, 9 | Question 8 states, “All Contractor employees working IA/IT functions must comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoDD 8570.01, DoD 8570.01-M and AR 25-2 within six (6) months of appointment to IA/IT functions.” Question 9 states, “The baseline certification as stipulated in DoD 8570.01-M must be completed upon contract award.” Would the Government consider allowing contractor employees to complete required certifications within 60 days after award? This would allow the Government to specify required certifications for each position to ensure that contractor personnel attain the most relevant certifications for the work to be performed. It would also allow entry-level personnel to achieve certifications while completing job responsibilities. | Requirement is firm | |
| 16 | L.1 | Section L requires proposal delivery via the ARL SAFE website. The Government’s answer to Question 7 in the first Q&A stated that a request code is not required. However, this site offers two options: “CAC Login” (for DoD users) and “Drop-off” (for anyone; states “must have request code from recipient”). The site also states, “Unauthenticated users can only send files to people with .mil addresses after receiving a request code from an authenticated user.” There appears to be no other option for submitting through this site to the email addresses provided in the solicitation. Could the Government please provide the request code for the “Drop-off” option or otherwise instruct non-DoD users how to submit files via this site? | Revised to ARMDEC Safe website at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe | |
| 17 | L.3(v) | Section L requires offerors to complete Section G – Contract Administration Data. However, this section is typically completed by the Government following award. Could the Government please clarify what information offerors should provide in Section G? | Revised - Section G – Contract Administration Data is deleted from L.3(v). | |
| 18 | M.C.1.a | The Government’s response to Question #24 in the Q&A for solicitation W911QX-17-R-0008 states that offerors are to provide JPAS documentation to verify personnel security clearances. |
Per our Facility Security Officer as well as the JPAS website, there is no authorized use of JPAS printouts. The JPAS website further states that Security Officers/Facility Security Officers should never print out any screen, screenshot or provide JPAS to any agency or person.
This statement can be found in the following FAQ document, #10.
Caution-https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/psawebdocs/docRequest// < Caution-https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__Caution-www.dmdc.osd.mil_psawebdocs_docRequest__&d=CwQFAg&c=Nwf-pp4xtYRe0sCRVM8_LWH54joYF7EKmrYIdfxIq10&r=cEyGxN2SXKZ6Ls2NyIz_uUarjenfukG8hyt4CctMCMI&m=iaB8Zae34LzbTujhXr6d_zbLGAc-VKtNtxAyddHvMns&s=lNEqQMVQEXVo4J4vQrxmMibGbT0SPyj9BMRmUuLY6m4&e= > filePathNm=PSA/appId=560/app_key_id=1559jsow24d/ siteId=7/ediPnId=0/userId=public/fileNm=JPAS+General+FAQ.pdf
Please advise how offerors should present clearance information as part of the proposal.
| Section M updated. The Govt will clarify clearances as the final authority once the appropriate information provided by the offeror. | ||
| 19 | Attachment 5 A01 Labor Categories | Attachment 5 A01 Labor Categories |
The Government’s required degrees for the Engineer/Scientist and Technical Analyst positions are a “BS degree in Engineering, Physical Science, Computer Science, Information Science, or Mathematics.” Since the individuals in these labor categories will often be performing advanced cybersecurity tasks, would the Government consider including “Cybersecurity, Information Systems, Computer Security, Information Technology, and related fields” as acceptable degree fields?
| Document updated Technical Analyst 1 through 4. However government would require Engineer/Scientist labor categories for Research positions. | |||
| 20 | Attachment 5 A01 Labor Categories | All Management Analyst labor categories, except for Management Analyst 2, allow for years of experience to substitute for degrees. Please confirm that the experience substitution is allowed for all Management Analyst positions. | Revised. |
| 21 | Attachment 9 Est Lab Cat Hrs. | Base IDIQ PWS C.2.6 cells E25:I27 and possibly total cells Q25:Q27 contain inconsistencies between hours and FTE. Please confirm that the hours shown are correct, not the FTE. | Revised. |
| 22 | Attachment 9 Est Lab Cat Hrs. | Base IDIQ PWS C.2.5 total cells Q19:Q23 do not properly sum hours for Years 1-5. Please clarify. | Revised. |
| 23 | Attachment 9 Est Lab Cat Hrs. | Base IDIQ PWS C.2.11 total cells Q50:Q52 do not properly sum hours for Years 1-5. Please clarify. | Revised. |
| 24 | The Government’s response to question #24 in the Q&A for solicitation W911QX-17-F-0008 states that offerors are to provide JPAS documentation to verify personnel security clearances. |
Per our Facility Security Officer as well as the JPAS website, there is no authorized use of JPAS printouts. It further states that Security Officers/Facility Security Officers should never print out any screen, screenshot or provide JPAS to any agency or person.
This statement can be found in the following FAQ document, #10.
| Please advise how offerors should present clearance information as part of the proposal. | Section M updated. The Government will clarify clearances as the final authority once the appropriate information provided by the offeror. | ||
| 25 | Paragraph L.3.c.(ii)(10), page 10 of Amendment 1 | “Estimated phase-in costs shall be included separately in the offerors cost proposal.” Question: Will the government define “phase-in costs and what is included in them? | There is no predecessor contract. This is a new award. Phase-in costs means the cost to onboard or phase-in. |
| 26 | Paragraph L.3.c., page 8 of Amendment 1 | “…Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file...” Question: Does the Summary Section count against the overall page count? | Summary Section does not count towards page count as stated in Amendment 1 Q&A line item 11. |
| 27 | Task Order 1, paragraph C.2.4.2.1 | Specialized Requirements (page 7)states “The Contractor shall ensure personnel performing administration support have Secret/SSBI clearances.” Question: Did the government mean SECRET Clearances? Would the government please clarify? | The AR25-2 ( Table 4-2, page 34 ) says any System Administrator, Network Administrator, or IT a classified support or enterprise support (core equipment) require a SECRET clearance with the SSBI - Single Scope Background Investigation. |
| 28 | For question 73 regarding a partial submission to the Base PWS, the government’s response was “Award(s) will be made only to those proposals that are capable of meeting all of the requirements”. | Question: Regarding Small Business, will the government make an award based on a proposal that is fully compliant with the RFP and Base PWS requirements but does not completely cover all elements of Task Order 1 and Task Order 2? | Proposal should be complaint with both base and Task Orders PWSs. |
| 29 | Will the government allow for an additional, separate file titled “TransmittalLetter and Executive Summary” in order to fully comply with the additional administrative information requested by the government such as data requirement requested for the ASSIST2Industry. | Any additional administrative information not addressed previously may be submitted as appendix. | |
| 30 | The detailed requirements forVolume II listed in Amendment 1, Page 10 of 27, Paragraph L(ii)(4) state that the LOIs are to be included in Volume II and specifically “Letters of commitment shall clearly identify the prospective employees’ agreed-to salary/hourly rate and other pertinent conditions of employment.” | Question: Since pricing and salary data cannot be included in Volume I – Technical, is the government requiring contractors to get two different LOIs from each employee; one type for Volume I and another type for Volume II? | No, only one letter will be necessary. |
| 31 | Section B, Item NO: 0003 requires pricing for Other Direct Cost (ODC)/Travel | Question: Since the RFP does not identify what ODC’s/travel the contractor is to bid, will the government provide a plug number for Item No.: 0003? If a plug number is provided is it inclusive of G&A? |
| ODC plug number is added in section L.. Yes it is inclusive of G&A | |||
| 32 | Amendment 0001 page 5 paragraph titled Proposal Prep. – ODC., second sentence | Question: What is the government’s definition of “direct material costs”? | Refer to FAR Part 31, FAR Appendix Cost Accounting Preambles and Regulations. Vendor's accounting practices shall be consistent with the vendor's cost accounting practices used in accumulating and reporting costs. The amount of detail required for any cost element may vary considerably between accounting practices. Accordingly, it is neither appropriate nor practical to prescribe a single set of accounting practices which would be consistent in all situations with the practices of estimating direct material costs |
| 33 | Amendment 0001 page 5 paragraph titled Proposal Prep. – ODC. | Question: Is it the government’s intent that all subcontractor cost such as direct labor, materials, travel, indirects and profit be classified as an ODC in the prime contractors proposal? |
| Correct | |||
| 34 | The detailed requirements for Volume II listed in Amendment 1, Page 10 of 27, Paragraph L(ii)(4) state that the LOIs are to be included in Volume II and specifically “Letters of commitment shall clearly identify the prospective employees’ agreed-to salary/hourly rate and other pertinent conditions of employment.” | Question: Since pricing and salary data cannot be included in Volume I – Technical, is the government requiring contractors to get two different LOIs from each employee; one type for Volume I and another type for Volume II? | No, only one letter will be necessary. |
| 35 | Section B, Item NO: 0003 requires pricing for Other Direct Cost (ODC)/Travel. | Question: Since the RFP does not identify what ODC’s/travel the contractor is to bid, will the government provide a plug number for Item No.: 0003? If a plug number is provided is it inclusive of G&A? | ODC plug number is added in section L.. Yes it is inclusive of G&A |
| 36 | Amendment 0001 page 5 paragraph titled Proposal Prep. – ODC., second sentence. | Question: What is the government’s definition of “direct material costs”? | Refer to FAR Part 31, FAR Appendix Cost Accounting Preambles and Regulations. Vendor's accounting practices shall be consistent with the vendor's cost accounting practices used in accumulating and reporting costs. The amount of detail required for any cost element may vary considerably between accounting practices. Accordingly, it is neither appropriate nor practical to prescribe a single set of accounting practices which would be consistent in all situations with the practices of estimating direct material costs |
| 37 | Amendment 0001 page 5 paragraph titled Proposal Prep. – ODC. | Question: Is it the government’s intent that all subcontractor cost such as direct labor, materials, travel, indirects and profit be classified as an ODC in the prime contractors proposal? | Refer to FAR Part 31, FAR Appendix Cost Accounting Preambles and Regulations. Vendor's accounting practices shall be consistent with the vendor's cost accounting practices used in accumulating and reporting costs. The amount of detail required for any cost element may vary considerably between accounting practices. Accordingly, it is neither appropriate nor practical to prescribe a single set of accounting practices which would be consistent in all situations with the practices of estimating direct material costs |
| 38 | Changes required by Amendment 1 are quite extensive and the period for submittal now covers a national holiday.Question: Will the government consider extending the proposal due date by at least 10 days? | Extension provided | |
| 39 | The Answers to Questions 45 and 71 conflict with one another. The first (A.45) states that we should price the proposal using the estimated labor categories and hours provided. A.71 states the same but says “However, offerors shall propose labor categories in accordance with their own personnel system in accordance with their own plan for performance of the contract requirements. | Will the government please clarify? | Estimated Labor Categories are exactly that, estimates. Contractors should provide their own solution to meet the requirements |
| 40 | The “EST_Lab_Cat_Hrs” attachment contains a Base PWS Tab and a Tab for each Task Order. | Is it the government’s intent to have offerors price the Base PWS and then utilize those rates for each of the task orders to provide cost to Level of effort or does the Government really plan, for example, to need two (2) Program Managers (1 on PWS and .5 each on each of the task orders)? Is the contractor to assume that they are to price the Base inclusive of the two Task Orders or are they cumulative and compounded? | Vendors should provide a Base Award solution which will be evaluated for award in the MATOC, and provide 2 firm proposals for Task Orders. |
| 41 | The answer to Question 51 would lead organizations to believe that the government is trying to limit or eliminate competition (at least at the task order level) since this clearly gives advantage to the incumbent. | Does the Government really intend to evaluate 65 Resumes at 3 pages each (195 Pages total) plus insure to completeness of the letters of commitment (another 65 pages) and cross reference them against the cost volume? Would it not beless risk to the government to promote competition by only requiring resumes for Key Personnel instead, and asking for a transition plan for existing workers thus enabling a level playing field? This is especially true regarding the impact to Small Businesses. | This is a new award so there is no incumbent. |
| 42 | The EST_Lab_Cat_Hrs spreadsheet lists the total hours for Task Orders 0001 and 0002 by labor category. Reviewing the EST_Lab_Cat_Hrs spreadsheet against Attachment_3_PWS_Task_Order_0001 and Attachment_4_PWS_Task_Order_0002, there is a discrepancy in the hours for Task 1. The EST_Lab_Cat_Hrs spreadsheet for TO 1 Estimated labor hours lists Management Analyst 3 twice at 1920 hours each. The Attachment 3 PWS for Task 1 lists Management Analyst 3 once under PWS 2.3.2 for 1920 hours. | Is there only one Management Analyst 3 at 1920 hours per year under Task Order 1? | One Management Analyst 3 FTE is correct. Estimated Labor has been corrected. |
| 43 | A review of the BASE Estimated Labor Hours tab in the EST_Lab_Cat_Hrs spreadsheet reveals that the total FTE count progressively increases beginning with 77 (Yr 1), 103 (Yr 2), 157 (Yr 3), 238 (Yr 4), 448 (Yr 5). | Is this correct? | Correct |
| 44 | In section L, pages 8 & 9 of Amendment 1, is there a separate structure for the task orders? The structure doesn't say where the individual task orders go or if they should be arranged the same way (at least for Section 1 - Subfactor 1, Section 2 - Subfactor 2, Section 3 - Subfactor 3, and Section 4 - Subfactor 4). | Question: Is it the government’s intent to award the base contract solely on the response to the PWS and then award the first two Task Orders to those contract awardees with the best response to those efforts? | Correct |
| 45 | The Task Orders identify completely different requirements using a near identical numbering schema as the Base PWS while simultaneously referring back to PWS Paragraphs within the Base PWS. There are multiple examples of this throughout the PWS documentation. We have provided two below: |
a. Example One: The Base PWS paragraph C.2.3.1.2 describes general technical support, while Task Order 1 paragraph C.2.3.1.2 states that the HPC Scientist will provide support for Base PWS C.2.3.1.1 and Base PWS C.2.3.3.2.
b. Example Two: The Base PWS paragraph C.2.4.1 describes Software Defined Networking, while Task Order 2 paragraph C.2.4.1 describes Cybersecurity Defense.
These issues create great difficulty for a contractor to coherently annotate and map Technical Capability and Past Performance to PWS elements and will cause significant confusion during the evaluation process.Question: Will the government correct these errors in numbering scheme?
| These issues create great difficulty for a contractor to coherently annotate and map Technical Capability and Past Performance to PWS elements and will cause significant confusion during the evaluation process.Question: Will the government correct these errors in numbering scheme? | Task Order 1 Updated | ||
| 46 | In the original RFP regarding Past Performance, the Prime contractor was limited to 25 pages and each significant Sub-Contract had the ability to provide 5 pages of past performance. Amendment 1, modifies and limits total page count to 30 pages by combining Volume III & Volume IV (instead of a separate volume for sub-contracting past performance). | Will the Government allow for the Prime to Submit 25 Pages and each significant sub to submit 5 pages of past performance as originally stated. (Significant Sub as defined in the RFP as expected to perform 10% or more)? | Revised. |
| 47 | The Answer to Question 24 regarding RFP paragraphM.C.1.a states: ”Listing current security clearance on each resume is not acceptable as proof of a clearance. Documentation from JPAS regarding individual clearances should be provided for all employees and potential hires with a letter of intent.” The JPAS operational policy on printouts from JCAVS specifically states: Personnel are granted access to JPAS for the specific purpose of verifying eligibility and determining access to classified information of their service members/employees and/or visitors. There is no authorized use of JPAS printouts. Security Officers/Facility Security Officers should never print out any screen, screenshot, or provide JPAS printouts to any agency or person. | Will the government please clarify this apparent conflict with Defense Security Service regulations regarding JPAS printouts? | Section M updated. The Govt will clarify clearances as the final authority once the appropriate information provided by the offeror. |
| 48 | The Answer to Question 48 states the QASP is incorporated into Volume I – Technical Approach and not part of the page count, but it is not clear where to place the QASP within a specific subfactor. We assume that only one QASP is required in Volume I. | Where is the QASP to be placed within Volume I? | As an appendices/attachment. |
| 49 | Section 4-Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation states the government will evaluate both Large and Small Businesses for their level of Small Business Participation. Most government RFPs do not require Small Businesses bidding on an RFP to submit a Small Business Participation plans | Is the requirement in Volume I – Technical, Section 4 Subfactor 4 – Small Business Participation only required for a Large Businesses? | No. The requirement is firm. Small business participation information is required of both small and large businesses. |
| 50 | It is understood that the contract period of performance is eight (8) years with a five (5) year base and three (3) one (1) year option periods. The Base estimated labor hours tab provides only the base period hours. | Will the government provide hours for the three option year periods? | There are no options. Although the PoP may go for eight years, the ordering period is five years. The additional years of PoP are provided to allow for completion of work and transition to the follow-on award. |
| 51 | M.C.1.a Section M states, “The Offeror shall provide evidence of investigation existence/eligibility for all personnel listed within the proposal submission… The Offeror shall provide evidence of investigation and/or SCI eligibility for all applicable personnel with the proposal submission.” Please confirm that listing of current security clearance in each resume is adequate evidence. |
Listing current security clearance on each resume is not acceptable as proof of a clearance. Documentation from JPAS regarding individual clearances should be provided for all employees and potential hires with a letter of intent.
Regarding question and answer #24 provided below, please be aware that contractor personnel are not authorized to, and may not, release printed or electronic copies of JPAS records to any person or entity, in accordance with National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). The appropriate U.S. Government release authority (commonly in an agency Privacy Act Office) is responsible for making release decisions regarding all JPAS records in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. Therefore, will the government consider omitting this amended requirement from the RFP? Section M updated. The Government will clarify clearances as the final authority once the appropriate information provided by the offeror.
NEED TO ADDRESS
| 3 | Section B. ITEM NO 0003 – OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) / TRAVEL COST | Section B states, “ODC's will not be subject to any type of fee (e.g. handling, materials, etc.)” As indirect costs are typically applied to ODCs, will the Government confirm that offerors can apply indirect rate burdens to ODCs? | NEED TO CHECK, I’M AWARE OF G&A BEING ALLOWED, NOT SURE WHAT OTHER RATES THIS REFERS TO | G&A rates are allowable and may be applied to the ODC CLIN. No fee shall be applied. |
| 4 | Sec I, 252.229-7999 | Would the Government consider deleting this provision: 252.229-7999 TAXES – FOREIGN CONTRACTS IN AFGHANISTAN (DEVIATION 2013-O0016) (JULY 2013) because it is not applicable to this contract? | I DO NOT SEE THE CLAUSE INCLUDED IN THE VERSION IN PCF, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SOLICITATION | Inadvertant selection, this clause will be removed. |
| 5 | Sec I, 252.232-7001 | Would the Government consider deleting this provision: 252.232-7001 DISPOSITION OF PAYMENTS (DEC 1991) because it is not applicable to this contract? | I DO NOT SEE THE CLAUSE INCLUDED IN THE VERSION IN PCF, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SOLICITATION | Inadvertant selection, this clause will be removed. |
| 7 | L.1 | Section L requires offerors to submit their proposals via the ARL SAFE website. This website requires entry of a request code from the DoD recipient of the proposal. Could the Government please provide the request code for proposal submission? | GET WITH JOE AS HE ALSO USED THIS SITE AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE. DON"T BELIEVE THIS IS CORRECT THOUGH, THEY SHOULD JUST BE ABLE TO SUBMIT USIG OUR EMAIL | No request code is required for this submission. The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically via the ARL Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) website at https://safe.arl.army.mil to the designated ARL representatives: Amador Phillip, Contracting Officer, phillip.j.amador.civ@mail.mil and Swati Jain, Contract Specialist, swati.jain2.civ.civ@mail.mil |
| 11 | L.2.c | Please confirm that subcontractor past performance information should be included in Volume III, not as a separate volume, and that Volume IV should be the solicitation information. | Correct, Swati revise the table to show V.III for subKTR PP | Table revised. |
| 12 | L.2.c | Section L states, “Manpower charts and the small business subcontracting plan are excluded from the page count.” Please clarify what the Government means by “manpower charts” and where this information should be included in the proposal. | I'M ASSUMING THIS IS THE BREAKDOWN OF LABOR CATEGORIES AND HOURS, NEED TO CHECK WHAT THE TEMPLATE IS REFERRING TO | A manpower chart provides the vendor's solution to fulling the requirements in terms of labor categories and hours. This chart is not required and is opional. |
| 15 | L.3.c(ii)(15), L.3.c(iii)(3), M.C.3(b) | Section L states, “A major subcontractor is defined as a member of the offeror’s overall team who is expected to perform 10% or more of the proposed effort.” Section L later states, “This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 10% of the total proposed cost/price.” Section M states, “Major subcontractors and joint venture partners are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.” Please consider removing the “who will be providing critical hardware/services” from Section L.3.c(iii)(3) to be consistent with the rest of Section L and Section M. | I SEE WHAT THEY ARE GETTING AT, OK WITH REVISION. NO NEED TO EMPHASIZE CRITICAL, ETC. | Revised |
| 16 | L.3.c(iii)(1) | Section L states, “This section shall include the following information in the following format.” Please confirm that this instruction means that offerors should provide the information in order of items (a) through (k). | Correct. SWATI PLEASE REVISE TO CLARIFY. | Revised |
| 18 | L.3.c.(ii) | Would the Government consider submission of offeror’s most recent DCMA/DCAA determination letter of accounting system adequacy to be acceptable in place of the Section L requirement for Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor’s Accounting System Checklist and offeror’s current accounting policies and practice? | NEED TO CHECK WITH POLICY, BUT I THINK IF THEY ARE ALREADY APPROVED, THIS SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE> | Yes. |
| 19 | L.3.c.(ii)(10) | Section L references Service Contract Act of 1965 and states “applicable minimum monetary wage and fringe benefits is not expected to be made part of any resulting contract.” In addition, there are multiple references to wage determination throughout Sections L and M. Please clarify whether the SCA and associated wage determination schedules apply to this contract. | The SCA does not apply. SWATI NEED TO REVISE OUT ANY REFERENCE TO SCA IF IT APPEARS TO BE PRESCRIPTIVE | The SCA is not applicable, reference in the Direct Labor Categories section will be removed. |
| 20 | L.E.2, para 2 | Section L under para E. “Discussions” states “no fee is applied to Other Direct Costs (ODC)” then defines ODC. Please clarify that this paragraph applies only to proposal preparation costs associated with task orders and not the task orders themselves. | Section L, Para E. applies to the task orders. | |
| 22 | M.B | Could the Government please clarify how it will evaluate the base contract versus each task order and the relative weighting of base contract versus task orders? | NEED TO REVIEW EVAL CRIT, SHOULD BE THAT BASE WILL BE REVIEWED TO ENSURE HOW THE KTR WILL ACCOMPLISH FULFILLING BASE REQ'S, TECH, PP AND COST. TASK ORDERS WILL BE EVALUATED THE SAME | The Government will evaluate the base and each task order in accordance with Section M., see M. para A.4. |
| 30 | M.C.4(a), para 1 | Please remove requirements under Materials and Services that subcontractors submit cost or pricing data because this is expected to be a competitive acquisition. | I believe this is required for any subcontracts that are issued not on a competitive basis and would be subject to requiring CP data? Correct? Answer would be: For any subcontracts that are not issued on a competive basis and are subject to the requirements of FAR 15.403-4, this would apply. | |
| 31 | M.C.4(d)(ii) | Please remove requirements under Subcontracts/Inter-organizational Transfers/Consultants that subcontractors submit cost or pricing data because this is expected to be a competitive acquisition. | Same as above 32, if the subcontracts are not issued on a competive basis, and meet the requirements for requireing C/P data, then C/P data is required. | |
| 32 | M.C.4, para 1 | Section M states the “Cost Evaluation Approach shall consist of all information, required to support proposed costs and prices as defined in the awardable task orders.” Please clarify whether the Government’s source selection cost evaluation approach to computing proposed cost is based only on the sum of Task Orders 0001 and 0002. | No, the base award should include a proposal as well that includes the overall cost for meeting the entire effort. | |
| 40 | Attachment 5 | The labor category personnel qualifications reference SCA job titles for Computer Operator, Computer Programmer, and Computer System Analyst. Is this considered an SCA contract subject to wage determinations? | NEED TO REVIEW, THIS AWARD COULD HAVE BOTH SCA AND NON-SCA POSITIONS. TYPICALLY, BONA FIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DO NOT. THESE LAB CATS MUST BE SPELLED OUT IN THE SCA. IF SO, NEED TO CHECK APPLICABILITY | |
| 43 | L.3.c(iii)(5) | Some Government contracting activities prefer to provide performance feedback in CPARs, in lieu of filling out an additional PPQ. Would ARL consider allowing offerors to submit CPARs in an appendix to the past performance volume in the place of at least one of the PPQs from the past performance Government contracting activity? | The requirements are firm. NEED TO CHECK, BUT I BELIEVE WE DO BOTH NOW. THE CPARS CHECK IS ON US IN KT'N, PPQ ARE FOR THE SSEB. | |
| 1 | Section B, CLINs 0001 – 0004 | requires the Offerorto propose the Maximum Cost and Fee for all PWS requirements over the ContractPeriod of Performance. But, PWS SectionC.1.3 states that the objective of the PWS “is to provide an MATOC IDIQ underwhich TO’s may be issued…” and PWS Section C.8.1 states that the Offeror shouldprovide personnel “…based on individual TO requirements.” This does not seem to provide enoughinformation to develop a reliable Basis of Estimate for the total program andis likely to result in a range of estimated proposal values that will bedifficult to evaluate. Would theGovernment provide a notional number of hours by Labor Category andNot-to-Exceed values for non-labor costs, for the purpose of calculating theproposed maximum cost for each of the CLINs? | SWATI, I THOUGHT WE HAD THIS, ADDING THE EST HOURS PER OVERALL LAB CATS. However, we provide this estimate, only as an estimate. Vendors should propose their solution to fulfilliong all the requirements in the Base PWS. | |
| 2 | Section L.2 Proposal Submission Requirements | In the Table under L.2.c, for Volume II Cost, it indicates that 3 separate CostVolumes are required (one for the PWS and one for each awardable TaskOrder). Please confirm what informationis required in the Cost Volume for the PWS. | I BELIEVE THIS WAS ASKED ABOVE, WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY THIS TABLE | |
| 3 | Section M, C.4.b | Direct Labor states, “Offerorshall propose its Direct Labor categories from the labor occupations detailedin the SCA…the Offeror shall provide a crosswalk between the SCA proposed laborcategories…” In the Labor Category descriptionsprovided with the Solicitation, the only positions with corresponding SCAoccupations are items #18 – 29. Pleaseconfirm that the requirement to “crosswalk” the LCATs to Offeror LCATs appliesonly to those positions. | I believe this is correct. The SCA should only apply to certain positions because the others are bona fide professional, not SCA applicable. | |
| 1 | Section L - (Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Proposal Submission Requirements, Page 122) | The RFP references a Subcontractor Past Performance Volume (IV), however there doesn’t appear to be any instructions or other reference to this volume other than the single reference in the table on page 122 under Section L-2.c. Please clarify if a separate Volume IV – Subcontractor Past Performance volume is required or if that should be included with Volume III. | NEED TO CORRECT THE TABLE HERE, FOR SWATI KO TO ADDRESS | |
| 2 | (Section L, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal Submission, Proposal Files, Page 123) | The RFP states that “Offerors shall provide a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) in accordance with the solicitation. Please confirm that since ARL already provided a PWS for the IDIQ and task orders that it is not necessary for the offeror to provide a PWS. | I believe this to be correct, we should only have a techncial proposal that offers the vendor's solution to meeting the PWS. I believe we started with the approach of having a SOO, which would require the vendor to produce a PWS. This may have never been revised when we firmed up the PWS for T1 & T2 | |
| 10 | Section M—Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor III & Subfactors-Cost Evaluation Approach, Cost Reimbursable Requirements, Major Cost Element Information (pages 140-144). | Are the instructions contained in Section M intended to be instructions to which offerors are expected to specifically respond to in their cost volume responses? If so, to avoid confusion with the Section L Volume II – Cost/Price instructions, would the government consider consolidating or moving the Cost Reimbursable Requirements, Major Cost Element Information instructions into Section L? | I BELIEVE THIS IS REFERRING TO TEMPLATE INSTRUCTIIONS, NEED TO REVIEW. | |
| 11 | (Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, CLIN Delivery/Task Order Minimum/Maximum Quantity and CLIN Order Value. Page 7). | The table provided with the RFP provides maximum and minimum values for the base PWS, but not for the two task orders. Does the government intend to provide maximum and minimum values for the two task orders? | NO CONSTRAINTS WILL BE ISSUED AT THE TASK ORDER LEVEL | |
| 12 | (Section L(ii), Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Volume II – Cost/Price, Page 124). | In the reference made to an Appendix G, the RFP states that “Offerors shall submit a ‘Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor’s Accounting System Checklist’ (SF1408), Appendix G.” Will the government provide an Appendix G? | NEED TO CHECK SHAREPOINT, PCF FOR THIS | |
| 13 | (Section L(ii)(11), Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Page 125). | Please confirm that if an offeror does not have a cognizant DCAA office, that submitting a copy of their proposal to their cognizant Government agency satisfies this requirement? | PROVIDE DCAA WEBSITE AS A RESPONSE, PERHAPS UPDATE THIS SECTION TO INCLUDE THE WEB ADDRESS IF NECESSARY | |
| 16 | (Task Order 0001, Section C.2.2.1 and Task Order 0002, Section C.2.2, Task Order Support). | The government provides the labor category: Program Manager – Management Consultant (Senior). This labor category does not appear in Attachment 5 A01_Labor_Categories. Is it the government’s intention for this to be Program Manager for the base PWS? If not, please clarify. | This may need to be revised. We do not have a clear way to pay for a PM that performs at the base level. All performance must be at the task order level. | |
| 19 | (PWS Task Orders 0001 and 0002). | Will the Government please provide a pricing template/spreadsheet for offerors that includes the desired labor categories, associated level of effort for each category, and period of performance? | The Government's estimated labor categories and level of effort are estimates only. Vendor's shall propose their own solutions for fulfilling the requirement. IS THIS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PROVIDE AS ESTIMATED? | |
| 21 | (PWS Task Orders 0001 and 0002). | Several labor categories are identified as applicable to SCA, please provide the applicable wage determination(s) for the task orders. | I DON"T BELIEVE ANY SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS APPLICABLE TO SCA. | |
| 24 | Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, (ii) VOLUME II – Cost/Price, Page 124). | In point 4, related to specific direct labor rates, please clarify whether |
personnel letters of commitment should contain agreed-to salary/hourly rates, since the letters are to be provided with resumes in the technical volume. Please confirm if it is sufficient for letters to state that the individual agrees to the labor category rate shown in the cost proposal
| THIS APPEARS TO BE OK. | |||
| 1 | The table on page 122 of section L | indicates five proposal volumes , however, page 120, para 2 and page 127 specifies four volumes total. Will the Government confirm that four volumes are required: Volume I – Technical, Volume 2– Cost, Volume III - Past Performance, and Volume IV - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations | TABLE CORRECTION |
| 2 | Page 128, (i) VOLUME I – Technical states | “The Offerors shall provide a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) in accordance with the solicitation.” The PWS is already provided by the government for the mother contract, Task Order 0001 and Task Order 0002. Will the Government please clarify its intent regarding the requirement “The Offerors shall provide a Performance Work Statement (PWS)” | KTR GENERATED PWS ISSUE AGAIN, SEE ABOVE |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .