QA_Spreadsheet_-_LM.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted Jul 27, 2018

Attached to: JE-OPETS Med Log Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: W911QY-18-R-0001
Issued by: Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground

About this file

From the source

Q&A for JE-OPETS-LM

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to JE-OPETS Med Log, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
FedBizOpps_Award_Notice_-_Contract_Information.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Oct 1, 2018
amendment_1.pdf	PDF	Aug 9, 2018
Att_5_PPAQ.pdf	PDF	Jul 16, 2018
Final_RFP_W911QY-18-R-0001.pdf	PDF	Jul 16, 2018
DRAFT_JE-OPETS-LM_PWS_20170614.pdf	PDF	Jun 14, 2017
DRAFT_JE-OPETS-LM_RFP_(Sections_L&M)_06142017.pdf	PDF	Jun 14, 2017
RFI_addendum_Log_Med_REV1.pdf	PDF	Apr 26, 2017
JE-OPETS_RFI_Log_Med.pdf	PDF	Mar 13, 2017

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

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

Question #	Page	Paragraph	Section	Industry Reference to Question	Industry Question	Government Answer
1				During Industry Day Presentations and Discussions, the government outlined a pricing evaluation approach focused on best value and price reasonableness. The parameters outlined involved the use of independent government price cost data and the evaluation of bidder’s prices whereby the government would assess whether submitted price/rate were within “n” standard deviations of the government’s independent data/assessment. It was stated that within 1 standard deviation the price would be deemed reasonable and accepted without negotiation, within 2 standard deviations would be viewed as subject to discussion/negotiation at the government’s discretion and 3 or more standard deviations would be viewed as “unreasonable”. The model described above AT Industry Day does not seem to align to the subject RFP’s Best Value, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable stated evaluation criteria. The discrepancy makes it difficult for offerors to provide qualified staff at a high retention rate to the government.	Can the government please clarify the approach to price/cost evaluation?	Price will be evaluated at the Task Order level. IAW FAR 16.5.

Price will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level.

2				Will the Government accept proposals from offerors whose facility clearance (FCL) is in the process of being reinstated by DSS as long as the FCL is in place prior to Contract Award?	Your clearance must be in place at time of contract award.
3				Will the Government accept and evaluate past performance of a proposed sub-contractor?	Yes.
4	Factor II, Technical/Management	L	Section L states: “ For each subfactor below, a rating of “Acceptable” will be based on the Offerors’ adequate description of how they will hire and position three (3) Task Orders with forty (40) FTEs, IAW the labor categories provided in the PWS, that are fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements within 30 days.	Are the start dates of the three task orders to be simultaneous? If not over what timespan will the three task orders start?	Yes, on 19 February 2019.
5	Evaluation Factors, 1st paragraph	M	Section M states: “Awards will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposals represent the Best Value to the Government by applying the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process described in FAR 15.101-2.”	Given that the RFP does not call for a cost/price volume, on what basis will the lowest price be determined in applying the cited LPTA FAR process?	The Offerers will be evaluated on Technically Acceptable basis. Price will not be evaluated. The class deviation applies as stated in the RFP. (Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Class Deviation 2018-

O0006 –Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task or Delivery-Order Contracts). Price will be evaluated at the Task Order level IAW FAR 16.5.

	6					Pursuant to RFP Section L.D.2 Volume I—Factor I, Past performance, please confirm that Past Performance citations can be from the Prime and/or Subcontractors past performance.	Yes.
	7		Factor I Past Performance	L.D.2		Will the government allow Offerors to submit a past performance reference that has been completed within the last five (5) years?	No. You should obtain new references from contracts executed within the past 5 years.
	8				Section L.D.1.e. The Government requests that the offer submit a certified copy of its Line of Credit. Given this is an electronic submission will the government allow for an electronic copy?	If the government is looking for us to deliver a certified copy, will the government please provide the address of where this needs to be delivered?	An electronic copy is acceptable.
	9		Table 1	L.D		The Government provides a file name TECH/MGT, however the utilization of a slash (/) in a file name is not a valid file name structure. Will the government allow for the file name to be TECHMGT?	Yes.
	10	L-5 & M-3	Vol II, Factor II, a. Subfactor 1 – Organizational Plan, ii.	Section L
Subsection D – proposal contents	The government states "The Organizational Plan will demonstrate scalability to accommodate three (3) Task Orders of forty (40) FTEs." In section M (page 3, criteria for acceptability of subfactor 3), the government states that the offeror must "demonstrate scalability to three (3) Task Order of forty (40) FTEs."	Since the government has stated that the Organizational Plan (subfactor 1) should discuss scalability, would the government consider re-aligning the section M criteria for acceptability (currently stated for Subfactor 3) to Subfactor 1? If so, we recommend the following revision:

"Criteria for Acceptability of Subfactor 1: To be evaluated as "Acceptable", the Offerors' Organizational Plan shall conform with all instructions to Offerors, demonstrate low risk to successful performance, and demonstrate a thorough and achievable and scalable plan, scalable to three (3) Task Orders of forty (40) FTEs."

"Criteria for Acceptability of Subfactor 3: To be evaluated as "Acceptable", the Offerors' Transition Approaches shall conform with all instructions to Offerors, demonstrate low risk to successful performance, and demonstrate an achievable methodology to all transitions detailed in this Subfactor and demonstrate scalability to three (3) Task Orders of forty (40) FTEs."	Yes, we will consider this change, to be implemented via Amendment 1.
	11	3, 17 of 35, and Attachment 3	1.3 ("Strategy"); H.17; Attachment 3 - Section M		On page 3, Section 1.3 ("Strategy"), it is indicated that, "[t]he Government's intent is to award at least three IDIQ contracts." Thereafter, in Section H.17, the Solicitation provides that, "[the Government estimates the following number of awards will be made under this solicitation: 3 " Finally, in Attachment 3, Section M, the Solicitation provides that, "[a]ward will be made to all proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for all non-cost factors."	Question: Given that the Solicitation provides for a strategy for award of 3 IDIQ Prime Contracts, can the Government confirm whether there is a maximum number of Prime Contract awards that will be issued?	There is no maximum number. We reserve the right to award more than 3 contracts per the RFP.
	12	3, 17 of 35, and Attachment 3	1.3 ("Strategy"); H.17; Attachment 3 - Section M		On page 3, Section 1.3 ("Strategy"), it is indicated that, "[t]he Government's intent is to award at least three IDIQ contracts." Thereafter, in Section H.17, the Solicitation provides that, "[the Government estimates the following number of awards will be made under this solicitation: 3 " Finally, in Attachment 3, Section M, the Solicitation provides that, "[a]ward will be made to all proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for all non-cost factors."	Question: Based on the language provided in Attachment 3, Section M, is it possible that more than 3 (e.g. 10 or more proposals) could be deemed acceptable for award?	Yes.
	13	3, 17 of 35, and Attachment 3	1.3 ("Strategy"); H.17; Attachment 3 - Section M		On page 3, Section 1.3 ("Strategy"), it is indicated that, "[t]he Government's intent is to award at least three IDIQ contracts." Thereafter, in Section H.17, the Solicitation provides that, "[the Government estimates the following number of awards will be made under this solicitation: 3 " Finally, in Attachment 3, Section M, the Solicitation provides that, "[a]ward will be made to all proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for all non-cost factors."	Question: Assuming it is possible that more than 3 proposals will be deemed acceptable for award, is there a manner in which the Government intends to rank and/or otherwise determine which Contractors will receive awards?	The government will evaluate proposals per the factors in Section M.
	14	Attachment 3 - Section M	Section M		The Solicitation provides in Section M that, "[a]wards will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposals represent the Best Value to the Government by applying the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process described in FAR 15.101-2."	Question: Will the Government consider opening Task Orders up to the full Best Value continuum, rather than just LPTA? There are certain labor categories under the Logistics and Medical domain where substantial value could be derived from these "knowledge based services." Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) discourages the use of LPTA for procurements that are predominantly for the acquisition of, " (1) information technology services, cybersecurity services systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, audit or audit readiness services, or other knowledge-based professional services..."	Task Orders will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.5.
	15	Attachment 1, Page 17; Appendix B - Pages 1 - 2	Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement - Paragraph 6.0; Appendix B - Quality Assurance Surveillance Guidance		PWS Paragraph 6.0 indicates that Appendix A is Acronym Definitions; however, APPENDIX B: Quality Assurance Surveillance Guidance references an Appendix A that is a Performance Requirements Summary.	Questions: Can the Government please reconcile this difference? Can the Government please provide the Performance Requirements Summary?	Yes. There is no Appendix A Performance Requirement Summary. This sentence will be deleted in a forthcoming amendment.
	16	Page 17 of 35	Paragraph H.14 (Addition of Contractors During the Life of the ID/IQ Contract)		In Paragraph H14, the Government indicates its intention to, "maintain the presence of small businesses as part of the awardee base."	Questions: Can the Government please provide clarity regarding this statement? Are there a certain number of IDIQ award spots being reserved for small businesses? If so, how many awarded spots will go to small businesses? Can the Government confirm whether there will be small business set-aside task orders?	This solicitation is utilizing full and open competition. There are no pre-determined set aside task orders.
	17	Attachment 2- Section L.D	Attachment 2 - Section L.D (Proposal Contents), Section VIII		Attachment 2 - Section L. D, Section VIII (Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan(QASP)) provides that, "[t]he Offeror shall provide a QASP which clearly articulates an effective method to achieve the concepts."	Question: Can the Government please provide more specificity/guidance regarding the QASP (e.g. Sample QUASP or additional instructions)?	See Appendix B of the PWS for QASP guidance.
	18		Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders; B Format 1.1	L	Proposals, to include all volumes requested, shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (pdf). Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file, with file names clearly identifying the company name, solicitation number, and volume name and number.		12mb file size limit per guidance from IT
	19		Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders; D. Proposal Contents; 1. Volume A - Administrative, d. Section IV	L	The Offeror shall print the SAM documentation and submit it as Section IV of the Administrative Volume.	Can the government provide clarification on what records from SAM.gov they want included in the proposal?	Representations and Certifications.
	20	66	b. Subfactor 2	L	Section L, Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management, B. Subfactor 2: Recruitment, Retention, and Replacement Competency, i states, The Offeror shall describe its detailed recruitment process, to include the interview and selection of qualified current employees and new hires, the strategy to contact and secure qualified incumbents, and the approach to retain contingent hires until the start of work date. However, Section M, Volume II, Subfacgtor 2, Section I states, In this section Offerors shall provide a narrative regarding experience and performance as a Prime or major subcontractor describing: relevant contract objectives; methodology and where used, IT (S/W and or H/W) applications employed for recruitment; recruitment metrics (number of FTEs hired; time to identify, vet and hire); retention metrics: replacement metrics, and objectives achieved relative to the recruitment, retention, and

replacement objectives of the contract(s). Narrative will provide detail as to how the effort(s) is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. A brief explanation of the reason(s) for shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence is required for any contracts that did not meet original schedule/technical performance

requirements or received a Cure Notice/Show Cause Letter. Also, if the contracts were terminated, an explanation must be provided describing the type and reason(s) for termination.	The Government has indicated that they will evaluate proposals per the factors in Section M. As noted, Section L does not align to the Section M requirement. Is the offeror to respond to the Section I of Section M or to i of Section L, or both? Recommned the Government fix this by alignining Section L words with Section M.	We will align the paragraphs.
	21	66	b. Subfactor 2	Section L	Section L, Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management, b. Subfactor 2: Recruitment, Retention, and Replacement Competency. Section L, B. Proposa Format. 1. Proposals, to include all volumes requested, shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (pdf). Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file, with file names clearly identifying the company name, solicitation number, and volume name and number. Input for each Section required under each volume shall begin on a new page.	Section L lists three parts to subfactor 2, i through iii. However, Section M outlines Subfactor 2 by Section I through Section III. The Government indicates proposal "Sections" are to start on a new page. For Volume I - Admin, this is very clear; however, for Volume II, the issue is not as clear. Subfactor 2: Recruitment, Retention, and Replacement Competency has two Sections (per Section M). Are each of these Sections to start on a seperate page? The Goverment can fix this issue by not calling the parts under Subfactor 2 sections in Section M, but labeling them i and ii as in Section L.	They do not have to start on a separate page.
	22	66	Volume I, Section II	Section L	Section L, Volume I, Section II of the RFP states “Ratings with written assessment(s) are to be provided for each of the three contracts cited in Past Performance. CPARS or Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires ratings will not count against page limits.”

	Will the Government clarify the method of delivery and due date for Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires?	They are due at the same time as the RFP. This will be addressed in the forthcoming amendment.
	23		Appendix B of the PWS		1. If possible, please provide an editable (Word version) Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire.	You may open the .pdf file and 'save as' .docx
	24				Appendix B of the PWS references “Appendix A Performance Requirements Summary”. However, Appendix A of the PWS is the Acronym List. Please clarify, and send the Performance Requirements Summary if possible.	There is no Appendix A Performance Requirement Summary. This sentence will be deleted in a forthcoming amendment.
	25		Task Order Management: Subparagraph 4.1	Subparagraph 4.1 states, “Outline and explain the management organization to be used to recruit, transition personnel and resources after award, and monitor performance throughout the performance period. This organization shall include the Site Supervisor assigned at each onsite support location, as well as their intended level of authority compared to the Management team.”	1) Does the Government require the name of a Site Supervisor at each onsite support location, even in cases where there may be only one employee onsite?
2) Can the Contractor Management Team assume responsibility and provide direction and guidance at locations where there is only one employee present?	1) You do not have to provide a name.

2) No, when there is only one, that individual is the site supervisor.

	26		INFORMATION ASSURANCE SUPPORT
Level IV	WBS	Under Education and Experience Required: The contractor shall possess experience working with Naval Network Warfare Command (NETWARCOM).	Will the Government please consider waiving this requirement if a candidate has similar experience with another DoD organization and meets all the other education and experience requirements?	This reference and labor category is not located in this solicitation.
	27		Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management; b. Subfactor 2	L	The RFP states, “CEAQs may be completed and submitted.”	Are CEAQs required?

Does the Government require the contracts referenced in Volume I Past Performance to be the same contracts represented in the CEAQs?

The current Attachment 4 in the RFP is in pdf format. Will the Government release it in a format more easily editable for the recipient(s) to complete? (e.g., a pdf form with editable fields, or MS Word) 1) No, CEAQs 'MAY' be completed.

2) They do not have to be for the same contracts.

3) You can click on 'Edit PDF' and type directly on the form or you can File save as a .doc Word file and type on the form. You can also hand write on the form and then scan it.

		Sect L.1.f.iii , Vol A	IV	One signed document per team member, in a format established by the offeror, indicating a legally binding agreement....and outlining the type of work to be performed, complexity and approximate level of work assigned, and socio-economic categories of the team member."	Many of our teaming agreements were written, negotiated, and signed well in advance of the RFP, and our offeror formats for IDIQ bids typically do not detail: type, complexity, or level of work to be assigned on yet-to-be-determined Task Orders. These agreements are also commonly silent on team member socioeconomic data.
Will the government permit offerors to include this descriptive data in a table within Volume A Section IV, rather than renegotiate our team's existing and legally binding Teaming Agreements?	Yes, and note that we are asking for the socio-economic category of your team mate, i.e, are they a small business, woman owned, veteran owned, etc…
		Section L; Volume A – Administrative; h. Section VIII. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)			Section L states, “The Offeror shall provide a QASP which clearly articulates an effective method to achieve the concepts discussed in Appendix B to the PWS.” PWS Appendix B is guidance for a QASP. In Appendix B there are references to “Program and Engineering Technical support services;” “Appendix A Performance Requirement Summary;” and “Appendix B Contractor Discrepancy Report.” The reference to “Program and Engineering Technical support services” does not seem to be germane to the Logistics and Medical domain. In addition, we cannot locate any appendices called “Appendix A Performance Requirement Summary;” or “Appendix B Contractor Discrepancy Report.” Will the Government clarify these requirements for the QASP?	There is no Appendix A Performance Requirement Summary. This sentence will be deleted in a forthcoming amendment.

File details come from the government source that posted it.