20170714_W911S0-17-R-0016__Questions_&_Answers_FedBizOpps.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 12 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911S0-17-R-0016
About this file
20170714 W911S0-17-R-0016 Questions & Answers FedBizOpps
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 20170714_W911S0-17-R-0016-0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment_2_-_Sample_Consent_Letter.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_3_-_Certificate_of_Non-Disclosure.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| W911S0-17-R-0016.pdf | ||
| Attachment_5_-_Total_Evaluated_Price.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment_1_-_Specific_Relevant_Contracts_Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_1_Specific_Relevant_Contracts_Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_3_Certificate_of_Non-Disclosure.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_4_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_2_Sample_Consent_Letter.docx | DOCX document | |
| W911S0-17-R-0016.pdf |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| Solicitation Section | Paragraph | Page | Reference | Question | Answer | |
| Section B | N/A | 10 - 28 | Will the government please provide the NTE amounts for Travel CLIN's 0010, 1010, 2010, 3010, & 4010? | The Government will include the travel amount at time of award. | ||
| PWS 5.4.1.1 | 1st | 50 of 117 | Section 5.4.1.1 references a paragraph 5.1.14 above that does not exist. Please clarify. | The correct reference is 5.2.12 - updated in PWS | ||
| PWS 5.4.1.3 | 1st | 50 of 117 | Specific tasks | PWS 5.4 defines optional tasks as sections 5.5 through 5.11. Yet, PWS 5.4.1.3 indicates optional system-based tasks are in paragraphs 5.3 through 5.11. Please clarify PWS sections representing the optional tasks. | Corrected in PWS: 5.4.1.3 now references 5.5 thru 5.11 | |
| Draft Solicitation 1.6.16.1 | 5th | 36 of 113 | OCI | Can the Government confirm that potential offerors that are currently performing development work for the ATSC (1) are not automatically precluded from consideration for award of the ATIA systems support being sought under this acquisition and (2) should an offeror be awarded a contract pursuant to this Solicitation, the awarded offeror would not be precluded from pursuing other development work with the ATSC because of OCI concerns? | There is no OCI. There are government reviews and decision points in between this contract and the ATIS Sustainment Contract that provide isolation between the two efforts. As evidence, the current incumbent teams on both contracts include a common subcontractor. | |
| Draft Technical Exhibit 3 | ||||||
| Draft PWS 5.5 through 5.10 | 1st | |||||
| 4th - 9th | 67 of 113 | |||||
| 49 of 113 | Draft Technical Exhibit 3 & Specification Tasks 5.5 through 5.10 | Technical Exhibit 3 (p. 67 of 113) lists the estimated workload data, i.e., the hours previously performed under the PWS by labor category and by contract option task structure. Can the Government clarify the estimates of hours vis-à-vis the projected number of annual tickets described for the option tasks in sections 5.5 through 5.10 (p. 49 of 113)? For example, 11,356 hours have been estimated by the Government for the Core System-Based tasks, but for the option tasks, the estimated hours per option don’t vary greatly but the projected number of annual tickets do. A full FTE for 5 annual tickets is estimated for Task 5.1 when 2 FTE are estimated for 75 tickets for Task 5.7. Two (2) FTE are estimated for the 75 annual tickets for Task 5.7 when 3 FTE each are estimated for the 245 tickets of Task 5.5 and the 275 tickets of Task 5.6. | Estimated Workload Data values in Technical Exhibit 3 and projected number of annual tickets are based on historical data over the previous 2-3 contract years. As stated in the PWS, not all tickets will require a full set of design artifacts (use case, function point, story card, wire frame, FTM): a large number of tickets are simple requirements/updates that do not require a lot of time/effort, so it would be difficult, if not impossible, to try to directly correlate number of projected tickets to estimated workload hours. | |||
| PWS 5.4.1.1 | 1st | 50 of 117 | work tickets maintained in the CM system | The section states, "…system-specific work tickets maintained in the CM system referenced in paragraph 5.1.14 above." There is no 5.1.14. Please provide correct reference. | The correct reference is 5.2.12 - updated in PWS | |
| PWS 1.4.1.1 | 1st | 30 of 117 | Analysis | This section mentions artifacts as described in section 1.2. Seems this is a typo that should read 1.3? | Updated 1.4.1.1 to reference sections 1.3 and 5.4 | |
| SF1449 | 1 | Due Date Time | The SF1449 states has the due date time listed as 12AM on July 31st, please clarify if the time should be AM or PM. | Corrected | ||
| Part 7, Attachment / Technical Exhibit Listing | 7.2, Attachment 2/Technical Exhibit 2 - Deliverables Schedule | 64 - 69 | N/A | Within the deliverables schedule table, the "Frequency" indicated for several deliverables is stated in calendar days; however, in the referenced PWS paragraph for most items, frequency is stated in business days. Will the deliverables schedule table be updated to state frequencies in business days? | Updated the Deliverable Schedule (Technical Exhibit 2) to match referenced PWS paragraphs | |
| Part 5, Specific Tasks | 5.4.1.6 | 51 | N/A | Para 5.4.1.6 requires the regression review report to be submitted immediately on completion of the review. There has historically been a two-day report writing period for a full pre-deployment regression review. Will the RFP be amended to allow those two days to complete the final Regression report? | Under current contract, regression review report is due four(4) business days after the review begins. Current contractor submits a report on the first day of the regression review, then updates daily. Provides a BLUF section once the review is complete. Waiting an additional 2 days would push the review period to 6 days - too long. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .