QA_Spreadsheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- JE-OPETS Acquisition Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W911QY-18-R-0002
About this file
updated Q&A
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FedBizOpps_Award_Notice_-_Contract_Information.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment_1_to_W911QY-18-R-0002.pdf | ||
| QA_Spreadsheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| NAICS_Code_size_appeal.pdf | ||
| RFP_JE-OPETS-Acquisition_20_June_2018.pdf | ||
| RFP_JE-OPETS-Acquisition_20_June_2018.pdf | ||
| DRAFT_JE-OPETS-A_PWS_20170614.pdf | ||
| DRAFT_JE-OPETS-A_RFP_(Sections_L&M)_06142017.pdf | ||
| DRAFT_JE-OPETS-A_PWS_20170614.pdf | ||
| DRAFT_JE-OPETS-A_RFP_(Sections_L&M)_06142017.pdf | ||
| JE-OPETS_RFI_acquisition.pdf |
Show all 11
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
Sheet1
| Question # | Page | Paragraph | Section | Industry Reference to Question | Industry Question | Government Answer | |
| 1 | L | Section L of the JE-OPETS solicitation has the following requirement underVol II, Subfactor 4, Management of Resources: Provide the strategy to address a disruption of, or the inability to fulfill, Task Order requirements, to include mitigation plans to address not assigning personnel by the Start of Work, the termination or resignation of personnel, the unavailability of support systems (e.g., facilities, equipment, software, etc.), and poor performance. Section M of the JE-OPETS solicitation has the requirement underFactor II, Subfactor 3, Transition Approaches and not under Subfactor 4. In which part of the proposal, Subfactor 3 or Subfactor 4, would the Government like to see the requirement addressed? | Alignment corrected in revised RFP. An amendment is forthcoming on FBO. | ||||
| 2 | Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management; Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management page72/80 states The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and responsible organization for the past (or) current contract. Does the government want 2 CEAQ’s sent out for each referenced contract? | One to the Government individual who can assess your performance and notify this contracting office (Stephen Smith) stating who you emailed it to. | |||||
| 3 | L | Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management ; Section L. Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders; B. Proposal Format; page 65/80 states Input for each Section required under each volume shall begin on a new page. Does this imply the input for each SUBFACTORmust begin on a new page? In Section M only Subfactor 2 has designated sections? | Subfactors do not need to be on separate pages. | ||||
| 4 | Section L; Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management ; b.Subfactor 2:Recruitment, Retention and Replacement Competency ; iii. Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnairepage 72/80 states The Offeror shall also e-mail a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire to Stephen.f.smith.civ@mail.mil by 5:00PM EST on 19 JUL 2018. The POC list shall be submitted in Microsoft Word for Windows and include the following information: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Phone Number; POC E-Mail Address, and; the date (DD MMM YY) on which the POC received the Questionnaire. Section MFACTOR II – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT; Subfactor 2:Recruitment, Retention and Replacement Competency; Section III – Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire page76/80 statesA point of contact list shall be submitted in table format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Offeror Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; Point of Contact Last Name, First Name; Point of Contact Title; Point of Contact Telephone Number; Point of Contact e-mail address; date the questionnaire was e-mailed to the Point of Contact (month/day). | Is the government requiring an email from the offeror with CEQA POC information to the KO and a table within the technical proposal with the same information? | No, we only need an email, do not submit the table. | ||||
| 5 | “Proposing by Company Division: A company with multiple divisions (with each division registered separately in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR)) is NOT permitted to submit a separate proposal by division for award consideration. Offerors are further cautioned that a proposal should address requirements uniquely based on the particular capabilities of the proposing division. In other words, the proposal must be organic to the division submitting the proposal.” | If an organization plans to submit a single response to the solicitation, would the government accept a submission that includes the past performance from a wholly owned subsidiary if the particular capabilities are organic across the entire organization? | Yes | ||||
| 6 | 3,24 | [t]he Government's intent is to award at least three IDIQ contracts. Thereafter, in Section H31, the Solicitation provides that, "[t]he Government estimates the following number of awards will be made under this solicitation: Small Business Set-Aside: 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." | 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? | The government may award up to 3 or more. | |||
| 7 | 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. | |||||
| 8 | 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. | |||||
| 9 | M | Will the Government consider adding a ranking factor in Section M, such as Past Performance relevancy/size/complexity, so that IDIQ awards are limited? The concern is a large pool of MA IDIQ awardees increases costs across all bidders and decreases chance of Task Order award success. Additionally, the addition of a ranking factor seems to be supported by the Government's strategy (see page 3, Section 1.3) to award three (3) IDIQ contracts. | No. | ||||
| 10 | Financial Documentation provides that, "[i]n order for the Government to determine financial responsibility, the Offeror shall submit the following financial statements, as applicable to both the past fiscal year and current reporting period (as of the date of proposal submission): Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flow Statement, Statement of Retained Earnings, Dun & Bradstreet Report (if available; if not, state so), Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Ratings (if available; if not, state so). | Will the Government consider modifying Government modify this provision to allow for the financial statements to reflect a date within seven (7) days of proposal submission rather than the actual date of proposal submission. This change will permit Offerors time to review their final proposals, and/or submit the proposal early. | Your financial data may be up to and including 5/31/2018. | ||||
| 11 | Under Subfactor 1: Organizational Plan, Paragraph L.D.3.a.v, the Solicitation provides that, "[t]he Offeror shall describe how major subcontractors fit into its overall corporate structure." | Can the Government please define the term "major subcontractors" as utilized in this section of the Solicitation? | 25% or greater percentage of the contracted work is performed as a subcontractor See Section M. | ||||
| 12 | 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. | 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 Acquisition domain where substantial value could be derived from these "knowledge based services" (e.g., Acquisition Analyst, Strategic Planner, and Relations Manager). 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. | |||||
| 13 | Will the Government utilize the LPTA source selection process for the two other OPETS domains: JE-OPETS-LM and JE-OPETS-BEI despite the discouragement of this source selection process pursuant to Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)? | This will be stated in the RFPs when they are released. | |||||
| 14 | Attachment 2 - Section L. D, Table 1 provides that Volume 1 (Past Performance) is limited to 15 pages. | Can the Government please confirm whether the CPARS ratings count against the 15 page limit for Volume 1? | No it will not count against the page limit. We will update section L language. | ||||
| 15 | In Attachment 2 - Section L.D.1.f, Section VI, Subparagraph iii, it is indicated that, the following is required: One signed document per team member, in a format established by the Offeror, indicating a legally binding agreement among the parties (i.e. teaming agreements) and outlining the type of work to be performed, complexity and approximate level of work assigned, and socio-economic applicable) of the team member. | Will the Government consider removing the requirement related to providing an outline of the type of work to be performed, complexity and approximate level of work assigned, and socio-economic applicable? In many instances at the IDIQ level this level of detail is not established in a teaming arrangement; rather, the teaming arrangement is refined with these details at the task order stage. | We require you provide general level information information only. | ||||
| 16 | 29 | Page 29 of 36 lists four attachments none of which are a pricing template or similar. Nor can we find guidance elsewhere in the RFP regarding how to price our offer or anything regarding a cost/price volume being required in our offer. Kindly advise. Or is IDIQ award being made perhaps exclusive of a price prop? | Price will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level. | ||||
| 17 | Reference your paragraph di. Section V: Financial Documentation (No page limit). | As you know, accounting reconciliation and preparation of financial statements lag actual financial activity considerably, often by 30+ days. Can we submit these financial documents as of May 31st please? | 31 MAY is acceptable. | ||||
| 18 | Please clarify if the Travel is Firm Fixed Price (FFP) as indicated in CLINS 1001, 4001, and 7001 or Cost Reimbursable as indicated in Clause H12, Reimbursement of Travel, Per Diem, and Special Material Costs. Clause H12 states in subparagraph (c)(1) that “the contractor shall be paid on the basis of actual amount paid to the extent that such travel is necessary” and subparagraph (c)(4) requires inclusion of “receipts or other evidence substantiating actual costs incurred for authorized travel.” Given the unpredictable nature of the travel associated with this effort, it seems that Cost Reimbursable would be the most appropriate. | Travel will be FFP. We will update H12. | |||||
| 19 | “Relevant contracts must have demonstrated the Offerors ability as the Prime or as a major subcontractor to recruit, hire and position fifty (50) FTEs within 30 days that were fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements. The FTEs provided must be similar to any or all labor categories described in the PWS of this solicitation.” | As written, we interpret that language to imply all three past performance references must have demonstrated the ability to recruit, hire and position fifty (50) FTEs within 30 days that were fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements, and FTEs provided must be similar to any or all labor categories described in the PWS of this solicitation. We don’t believe that was the government’s intent and that as written will significantly limit competition amongst the prospective small businesses expected to compete for this opportunity, including the incumbent OPETS contractors. Recommend this be revised so that the combination of the past performance references must demonstrate this ability to staff similar labor categories and on-board 25 FTEs within the past performance specified on-boarding period, which would accurately reflect the actual recruiting efforts performed under the individual OPETS task orders by any one contractor. | No. You must provide past performance for contracts or task orders that each resulted in 40 50 or more FTEs and could have been filled utilizing sub-contractors as well. | ||||
| 20 | Please confirm that Past Performance citations can be from the Prime and/or Subcontractors. | Correct. It may be from Prime or major sub-contractors. | |||||
| 21 | Attachment 3 – Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award, “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 describe in FAR 15.101-2.” | Since pricing information is not being requested at the IDIQ level, please confirm that the Government will make IDIQ awards on overall best value and that Task Order awards will be made using LPTA evaluation principles. | The IDIQ will be awarded in accordance with the solicitation. Task Orders will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.5. | ||||
| 22 | The ability to recruit and retain high-quality personnel is paramount for JPEO-CBRND. In addition to evaluating the offeror’s demonstrated past performance in filling positions, will the Government consider adding consideration for quality of personnel and the ability to achieve high retention rates to their evaluation criteria? | Not at IDIQ level but rather at task level. The evaluation criteria has not changed. | |||||
| 23 | 72, 75-78 | Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management, first sentence states “The Offeror shall provide a narrative proposal response to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) attached to this solicitation to address the specific JE-OPETS MA IDIQ contract being proposed.” However it is followed by subfactors (1-4) that direct specific content, of which none of these sections concern responding to the PWS. Additionally, in section M when it discusses evaluation of Factor II, there is no mention of the PWS evaluation criteria. | For Volume II, request the Government to clarify whether offerors are to respond only to the four subfactors of Volume II and/or to provide a narrative proposal for each element of the PWS. If offers are to describe their approach for each element of the PWS, please provide an explanation in Section M of how this content will be evaluated and request increasing the page limit to at least twenty additional pages to sufficiently respond to this requirement. | All of the factors are related to the information in the PWS, but proposals will be evaluated against the source selection criteria. | |||
| 24 | 74 | In Section M, Evaluation for Award it 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. In accordance with Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Class Deviation 2018- O0006 –Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task or Delivery-Order Contracts, price will not be evaluated at contract award but will be evaluated at Task Order evaluation. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Past Performance and the Technical factor (to include all). Award will be made to all proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for all non-cost factors. | Request the Government to clarify as to how Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process is applied to this multiple-award contract when cost/price are not required and are not evaluated. | 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)
| 25 | 74 | In Section M, Factor 1-Past Performance it states that the “Offeror shall submit a list of three Government contracts (prime and/or major sub-contracts) which are currently in performance or were awarded during the past five (5) years, and are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.” | In order to encourage industry to build high performance teams for this acquisition, would the government consider allowing an offeror to use relevant past performance from a subcontractor’s prime contract performance? | Yes. |
| 26 | 74 | In Section M, Factor 1-Past Performance it states that the “Offeror shall submit a list of three Government contracts (prime and/or major sub-contracts) which are currently in performance or were awarded during the past five (5) years, and are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.” | In order to demonstrate full contract performance and experience relative to JPEO-CBD IDIQ, request the Government allow an offeror to submit the current OPETS IDIQ contract with its associated task orders as one past performance citation. Also request the Government modify Sections L and M definition of relevance to allow for inclusion of previous JPEO-CBD IDIQ contract past performance and exclude specified FTE numbers. | 1. OPETS may be used as past performace. 2. You may use OPETS for Past Performance. 3. The FTE level is now 40 remains 50. 4. Any relevant past performance may be used as long as it was executed within the past 5 years. |
| 27 | 73 | The Government requests the offeror to include master schedules for transition in and out of work that begin no less than thirty days prior to the start of work of any Task Order Period of Performance (POP) and ends no less than thirty days leading up to the end of the Task Order POP. | Is it the Government’s intention for offerors to provide this level of detail with task order RFP responses only, or is it the Government’s intention that bidders on this IDIQ vehicle provide a generic Task Order phase-in and phase-out “transition” schedule? | Provide a general process at the IDIQ level in accordance with the guidelines in the RFP. |
| 28 | While researching the required facility clearance level for the ID/IQ contract, it came to our attention that, per section H.11 Security Classification, information regarding the main ID/IQ contract clearance level is included in “…the DD Form 254 applicable to this ID/IQ contract.” However, we were unable to locate the DD Form 254. We have two questions: | Is an active secret facility clearance (FCL) required for a company to bid the ID/IQ? | Yes. At a minimum you must have a SECRET at the IDIQ level and a Top Secret at the task order level if the task order RFP specifies Top Secret. This will appear in the RFP amendment. | |
| 29 | Is the Government providing the DD Form 254 referenced in the RFP and described above to offerors? | see #28, yes, and we will provide. | ||
| 30 | Would the Government evaluate the capabilities of the major sub-contractors? | yes. | ||
| 31 | Would the Government accept and evaluate past performance of a proposed major sub-contractor? | We will evaluate the past performance of subs if they have a CPAR yes | ||
| 32 | 70 | The Offeror shall submit up to but no more than three (3) Government contracts performing as the |
Prime Contractor or performing as a “major” subcontractor (i.e. 25% or greater percentage of the contracted work is performed as a subcontractor) which are currently in performance or were awarded
| during the past five (5) years and are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. | Our initial question is – may we submit a teammate’s (our prospective subcontractor) past performance as one of our NTE 3 past performance references? | We will evaluate the past performance of subs if they have a CPAR yes | |||
| 33 | I was under the impression that the solicitation was issued for this requirement and it was in the proposal phase, yet a Presolicitation notice for the same requirement with the same number has been issued. Would you be able to clarify the status of this for me? Was that solicitation just for reference and is not active at the moment? | The RFP is active since 20 June. The Presolicitation notice is a procedural event. | |||
| 34 | Volume I– Factor I, Past Performancepage 70/80 states The “Offeror” shall submit up to but no more than three (3) Government contracts performing as the Prime Contractor or performing as a “major” subcontractor (i.e. 25% or greater percentage of the contracted work is performed as a subcontractor) which are currently in performance or were awarded during the past five (5) years and are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation . | Does “OFFEROR” imply only past performances from the prime are acceptable? To what extent does the Government plan to consider the Offeror's team member's qualifications and/or past performance as they relate to evaluation factors in this solicitation? | We will evaluate the past performance of subs if they have a CPAR. We will evaluate technical and past performance in accordance with Amendment 1 to the solicitation. | ||
| 35 | Volume I– Factor I, Past Performance (Sections 1 and 2 -15 page Limit) Section II: CPARS ratingspage 71/80: Ratings with written assessment(s) are to be provided for each of the three contracts cited in Past Performance. | We read this to imply CPARS written assessments are part of the 15 page count limit for Volume I. Will the government reconsider not including the CPARS in the page limit or increasing the page count as CPARS can assume the entire page limit? | There is no page limit to CPARs | ||
| 36 | Volume II - Factor II Technical/Management; Subfactor 2: iii. Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire page 72/80 | Can the government provide the specific POC forsubmission of the Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaires for currentOPETS contracts. | Kuenapa (Kay) Slagle, Procurement Coordinator, JPEO-CBRND Joint Omnibus Management Office (JOMO), 50 Tech Parkway, Stafford, VA 22554, (703) 617-2417 | ||
| 37 | Section L states, "The Offeror shall provide a narrative proposal response to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) attached to this solicitation to address the specific JE-OPETS MA IDIQ contract being proposed". | Does the government desire offerors to address each individual element/paragraph outlined in the PWS or just address the sub factors included in Volume II? | All of the factors are related to the information in the PWS, but proposals will be evaluated against the source selection criteria. | ||
| 38 | In Section M, Factor I – Past Performance, the RFP states, “Relevant contracts must have demonstrated the Offerors ability as the Prime or as a major subcontractor to recruit, hire and position fifty (50) FTEs within 30 days that were fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements.” | Our company has past performance for a contract with 48 FTEs – will our Past Performance assessment be adversely evaluated by having 2 fewer FTEs than that stated in the Factor? | The requirement as written stands is changed to 40 FTEs. | ||
| 39 | In Section M, Factor I – Past Performance, the RFP states, “Offerors shall submit a list of up to three Federal Government contracts for which the Offeror was the prime or as a major sub-Contractor (a major subcontractor is defined as having performed at least 25% of the total cost of the contract being cited)…” And, “Relevant contracts must have demonstrated the Offerors ability as the Prime or as a major subcontractor to recruit, hire and position fifty (50) FTEs within 30 days that were fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements.” | Is the requirement here that the past performance citation requires at least 50 FTEs for the entire contractor team of which we were a “major” subcontractor, or that we, as a major subcontractor, are required 50 FTE positions on the contract? | The Offeror shall provide past performance (including a CPAR or Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire) on up to three relevant contract support personnel contracts. Any contract used for past performance shall be at least 50 40 FTEs. The past performance may be from either the Offeror's past performance as a prime contractor or from the Offerer's proposed JE-OPETS team's past performance. | ||
| 40 | In the instructions for Volume II, Factor II, Subfactor 1 and the evaluation criteria for Factor II, Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 3, the criteria states “demonstrate scalability” or “adequate description of how they will hire and position”. However, Evaluation Factor 1, Past Performance, states “Relevant contract must have demonstrated the Offers ability…..”. If the Offeror did not have a requirement to recruit, hire and position 50 personnel within 30 days, it would imply that the contract cited would not be compliant with the evaluation factor and would not receive an acceptable rating. This requirement is contradictory to the other instructions and evaluation criteria where demonstration of capability is required (see the various sections as extracted from the RFP below). | Will the Government please review and revise the Evaluation I – Past Performance language to remove the requirement of fifty (50) FTEs for citing relevant contracts so as not to exclude the preponderance of small businesses that have not had the requirement to provide all fifty (50) FTEs immediately upon award? A potential reword would be ““Relevant contracts must have demonstrated the Offerors ability as a Prime or as a major subcontractor to recruit, hire and position multiple FTEs in similar labor categories as required in the PWS, within 30 days that were fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements.” The demonstration of scalability can be successfully described and evaluated per the remaining evaluation factors. | The requirement as written stands is changed to 40 FTEs. | ||
| 41 | There is no Section D in the solicitation, please confirm if there is an applicable Section D. | Section D in the Uniform Contract Format is "Packaging and Marking". There is no Section D. | |||
| 42 | L and M | To clarify intent, facilitate compliance and enable evaluation, will the government align and reconcile the requirements between Section L and M? | We will align the paragraphs. | ||
| 43 | M | At many industry engagements over the past year, the government has expressed a desire for competition at the IDIQ stage and yet the RFP uses merely pass/fail criteria for scoring proposals. Will the government reconsider its evaluation strategy and go back to the range of qualitative factors (e.g., Outstanding through Unacceptable, very relevant to not relevant) vice acceptable and unacceptable? The range/spectrum permits the government greater distinction between offerors, thus enabling an evaluation that permits the government to select awardees with greater fidelity as Technically Acceptable and deliver the Best Value to the Government. | This wll be evaluated using the LPTA process, but without price. | ||
| 44 | Subfactor 1 and 4 | In section M, specifically on page 77 the government states line of authority and lines of comminucation are part of Subfactor 4, this doesn't reconcile with Section L instructions for subfactor 4 on page 73 and are in direct conflict with instruction for subfactor 1 that direct they be included tas part of subfactor 1. Can the government please align all section L and M requirements throughout page 72 thru 77, to clarify intent, facilitate compliance and enable evaluation. | We will align the paragraphs. | ||
| 45 | M | The governement states the following, "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." Assuming this is referencing the IDIQ award, how will task order awards be evaluated? | The IDIQ will be awarded in accordance with the solicitation. Task Orders will be awarded in accordance with FAR 16.5. | ||
| 46 | Subfactor 1: Organizational Plan, Page 72 | ||||
| iii. The Offeror shall identify Key Corporate Personnel (and provide resume highlights) who will provide IDIQ and Task Order management oversight. | Will the government require Key Personnel from the positions outlined in the RFP/PWS? | No, we are only interested in Key personnel at the IDIQ level The Offeror shall identify Key Corporate Personnel (and provide resume highlights) who will provide IDIQ and Task Order management oversight. | |||
| 47 | Contract Manager and Alternate: The Contractor shall provide a Contract Manager and Alternate Contract Manager, who shall be responsible for the performance of the work. The names of the Contract Manager and Alternate Contract Manager shall be designated in writing to the KO. The Contract Manager, or Alternate Contract Manager when the Contract Manager is absent, shall have full authority to act for the Contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of this contract. | Will the Contract Manager and Alternate Contract Manager be considered “Key Personnel” by the Government for this RFP? | Yes at the IDIQ level. | ||
| 48 | Attachment I, PWS, Page 18 | Will the Government provide minimum qualifications for all Positions outlined in the PWS | Additional position information will be at the task order level. | ||
| 49 | Will the Government provide Labor Categories for the positions required to support this contract? | Refer to the PWS. | |||
| 50 | Security Analyst. The Contractor shall support the JPEO-CBRND HQ Facilities and Security Managers with daily operational tasks for all JPEO-CBRND facilities. | Will the Security Analyst be required to provide access control support and S2/security administrative type support to the JPEO-CBRND HQ Facilities and Security Managers? | That level of detail is provided at the task order level. | ||
| 51 | Will labor be based on an annual hour culmination of 1920 hours or will the Government provide the annual Labor Hours required? | Hours will be specified at the TO level. | |||
| 52 | Will the government require a Cost Proposal Volume/Excel submitted with RFP Response? | No. Price will not be evaluated. | |||
| 53 | If the Government requires a Cost Proposal will the Government provide a Cost Proposal Template? | No. Price will not be evaluated. | |||
| 54 | Is there a current incumbent vendor providing services? | Yes. | |||
| 55 | If there is a current incumbent providing services, will the Government provide the Vendor’s name? | No, but you can look it up on FBO and JPEO-CBRND website. The contract numbers are W911QY-13-D-0002 through 0071. | |||
| 56 | Section II: CPARS ratings: Ratings with written assessment(s) are to be provided for each | ||||
| of the three contracts cited in Past Performance. | If a referenced Past Performance is in current performance and a CPARS has not been generated against it, will a Past Performance Questionnaire be a sufficient replacement for the CPAR rating requirement? | A CPARs or Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire is required. But you may use that example in the Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire if the period of performance is at least 9 months. | |||
| 57 | Can the government please provide guidance relative to how vendors are to respond for contracts being cited which are either subcontracts (where CPARS is typically not done) and/or prime contracts less than a year where CPARS has not yet been completed by the contracting office. | A CPARs or Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire is required. The Offeror can provide past performance on up to three relevant contract support personnel contracts. Any contract used for past performance shall be at least 40 FTEs. | |||
| 58 | Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form, Page 2: " 100% total Small Business | ||||
| Set Aside (SBSA), Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MA ID/IQ) contract within the Acquisition business area.”. | Given the NAICS Code 541330 Size Standard of $38.5, and 78 Fed. Reg. 61114 (October 2, 2013) and SBA No. SIZ-5207 (2011) specifically allows contracting officers to require potential offerors to recertify their size as a small business for an order issued under a GWAC/BPA, will the government include a small business certification requirement in the final RFP? | ||||
| Rationale: Without including a requirement to recertify as a small business, recent procurements using various contract vehicles have shown that business that may have been "small" upwards of five years ago, now operating as large businesses ($100+ M) have been "allowed" to compete as a small business. Requiring recertification will ensure businesses currently under the size standard are allowed a fair opportunity to compete for this opportunity. | Recertification is specified in FAR. 52.219-28. | ||||
| 59 | Can the Government please provide an estimated LOE for each TO to be released against the JE OPETS Acquisition IDIQ? | Yes, and will be given at the task order level. | |||
| 60 | Recommend the Government revise the Proposal Validity to 365 days. Offerors can not guarantee validity for the duration of the awarded contract (approximately 2,370 days). | Proposals shall be valid for 365 days. | |||
| 61 | Reference: L.D.2. | To demonstrate the depth and breadth of an offeror’s team’s experience performing task orders with at least 50 FTEs, may an offeror use a past performance reference of one of its teammates? | We will evaluate the past performance of subs if they have a CPAR. The Offeror can provide past performance (including a CPAR or Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire ) on up to three relevant contract support personnel contracts. Any contract used for past performance shall be at least 40 FTEs. | ||
| 62 | Reference: Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. | Throughout Section M of the RFP, the Government refers to demonstration of an offeror’s ability to recruit, hire, position, and manage 3 task orders with at least 50 FTEs each as a defining characteristic of Technical Acceptability. However, offerors with no record of past performance (i.e., Neutral) will receive “Acceptable” ratings per the current evaluation criteria. Will companies that provide Past Performance be weighted more favorably than an offeror with an Acceptable technical volume and no presented past performance? | No A lack of past performance is rated as neutral. Neither are weighted. | ||
| 63 | Reference: H.31 and M Evaluation Factors for Award. | Does the Government intend to award the contract to only three small businesses if more than three are considered Technically Acceptable? If not, how will the government down-select based on an LPTA approach with no rates required to be proposed at the IDIQ level? | See above but IAW the RFP we can award 3 or more than 3. | ||
| 64 | Reference: L.D.3.b.iii. | Can the Government please confirm that the offeror is (1) to complete Part I of each CEAQ to be distributed, and (2) send the CEAQ to two (2) Government POCs – the contracting authority (i.e., Contracting Officer) and responsible organization (i.e., COR) to complete Section II? | Send one to the Government POC who can write the assessment and notify the contract specialist in an email. | ||
| 65 | Reference: L.D.3.b.iii and M Factor II Subfactor 2. | Section II of CEAQ contains questions that Government POCs – especially the required contracting authority - may not be able to answer at a level of detail that indicates “corporate success in executing professional services contracts.” Given this, how does the Government intend to use the CEAQ as a measure of Technical Acceptability? | CEAQs are required IAW the RFP. | ||
| 66 | Reference: L.D.2. | Will Joint Ventures be allowed to use the Past Performance of all members for submittal? | Yes | ||
| 67 | Page 66 of 80 | Proposal Validity – is it the Government’s intent that the proposal validity on the SF 33 should be 2,372.5 days ((base period + option period + 6 month extension) * 365 days) | Proposals shall be valid for 365 days. | ||
| 68 | The solicitation makes multiple references to the cost volume, however on page 68 of 80 there is no cost volume listed. Can the Government please confirm a cost volume is not required in response to this solicitation? | There are no references to a cost volume and one is not required. | |||
| 69 | Page 69 of 80: | Teaming and Subcontracting – Will the prime awardees be able to add subcontractors/team members at the task order level in performance of this IDIQ? | Yes. But require notifying the KO. | ||
| 70 | Page 71 of 80 | CPARS ratings – CPARS ratings are not given to subcontractors. If a subcontracted effort is used as one of the three contracts cited in past performance, what should the offeror provide in this section? | CPARs or Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires are required. | ||
| 71 | Page 72 of 80: | “… demonstrate scalability to accommodate…” – What time period should the offeror assume that the three task orders of 50 FTEs each are awarded within to demonstrate scalability? | The requirement is changed to 40 FTEs. Task orders totaling approximately 150 FTEs will be awarded prior to the start of the period of performance. stands. The requirement is for approximately 150 FTEs. | ||
| 72 | Page 72 of 80: | Corporate experience assessment questionnaire – Is this included in the page count of subfactor 2? | no | ||
| 73 | Page 72 of 80 | Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire: if it is included in page count of subfactor 2, is it the Government’s intent to include the documents with the solicitation? Is it also the Government’s intent to submit an additional document regarding the POCs separately after the due date of the solicitation? | It is not included in the page count. It is our intent you notify the contract specialist with an email of who you sent the questionnaire to by the proposal due date. | ||
| 74 | Page 72 of 80 | Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaire: “…e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity…”, if one of the past performance references is as a subcontracted effort, usually the prime contractor would not provide to POC for the Government contracting activity to a subcontractor. Can we provide a POC at the prime contractor to submit the questionnaire in the case of a subcontracted effort? | Yes, but you must ask the POC to clearly identify your company name and their Government contract number and you must provide us with a copy of your request to them. They must also provide the CPARS for that contract. Amendment 1 changes the CEAQ, refer to Amendment 1. | ||
| 75 | Page 74 of 80: | We believe that the FTE requirement on the past performance volume is too stringent. The statement “…50 FTEs transitioned within 30 days that were fully trained and ready to perform all WBS requirements.” disqualifies small business’ who have performed the type of work provided in the performance work statement but potentially only transitioned 10 to 49 FTEs within a longer duration (more than 30 days) as stipulated by the contract used as a past performance reference. Recommend that the relevancy of past performance be based on the types of work being performed in the PWS for the OPETS acquisition, not the total number of FTEs and the transition period for the contract. | No. The requirement is changed to 40 FTEs. | ||
| 76 | 2 | Section A identifies “NAICS Code 541330, Engineering Services for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons, applies with a small business size standard exception of $38,500,000.00.” | Recommend the Government use NAICS code 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering and Life Sciences (SB<1000 employees) to define the small business size standard for the JPEO CBD Acquisition IDIQ. Using NAICS code 541715 acknowledges small business companies with less than 1000 employees play a central role in providing crucial services related to the JPEO CBD IDIQ scope of work. Using this NAICS code will allow the Government access to high performance companies and to incumbent work forces while also receiving small business credit for their work. Of note, the Government recently awarded two IDIQ contracts, RS3 and JE-RDAP, which used NAICS code 541715 and the scopes of work for those IDIQs were similar to that of the JE-OPETS Acquisition IDIQ. | We have re-examined the NAICS code and will continue with code 541330. | |
| 77 | Section M. | There is a neutral rating for no past performance in FACTOR I – PAST PERFORMANCE. However, FACTOR II – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT, Subfactor 2, Section III makes it appear that you will now need a CEAQ for this section or you will be non-compliant. Please confirm that the neutral rating for no past performance carries through the entire proposal and that a submission without past performance is eligible for an award. | |||
| If your company has no Past Performance your proposal would be rated as "neutral" and a neutral rating for Past Performance is eligible for award in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures and the solicitation. However, the Technical Factor, Subfactor 2, section "iii" requests up to three Corporate Experience Assessment Questionnaires, so if your company cannot show Corporate Experience in the form of a returned CEAQ, your proposal would receive an "unacceptable" rating under Technical Factor, Subfactor 2, and any "unacceptable" rating would make your proposal unawardable in accordance with the solicitation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.