A07_-_Solicitation_Q&A_FINAL.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911SR-19-R-0001
About this file
Industry Questions and Government Responses (Q&A) to W911SR-19-R-0001
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
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
W911SR19R0001
| Q# | Document | Page | Paragraph | Topic | Industry Question | Government Answer | Resulting Revision (if applicable) |
| 1 | Solicitation | 2 | A.5 | Due Date | Reference Page 2, paragraph A.5. Will the Government please confirm that the proposals are due at 12:00pm EDT (not DST) on 26 April 2019? | All proposals are due at 12:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on 26 April 2019. | Amended A.5. |
| 2 | Solicitation | Section B and Page 23 | Delivery Dates | Reference Section B and Page 23 regarding Delivery Dates. Since the base IDIQ contract is for a 60 month period, shouldn't the end dates of each CLIN 0001 through 0003 reflect an end date of 04/30/2024 in the same manner as CLINS 0004 and 0005? | The POP of 60 months is for the base IDIQ and each task order will specify its own POP. | Amended CLINS 0001-0003 POP on page 27, and correct CLIN description to delete "Year 1" for CLINS 0001-0003 | |
| 3 | Solicitation | 57 | L.1.2.2 | List of Acronymns | Reference Page 57, L.1.2.2 List of Acronyms. Will the Government please exclude the List of Acronymns from the page count for each volume? | The Government will not include the list of acronyms in the page count per volume. | Amended, to include "list of acronyms" exclusion in L.1.2.2. |
| 4 | Solicitation | 64 | L.5.3.5 | Indirect Expense Rates data | Reference Page 64, L.5.3.5 Indirect Expense Rates Data, #3. "3. A copy of a DCAA audit or DCMA review of indirect rates incurred during a period within the past two years based on the solicitation due date". Will the Government please confirm that it is acceptable to provide the audit/review letter resulting from the review of an incurred cost submission from DCAA or DCMA to meet this criteria. If this is not acceptable, please indicate what specific document should be submitted. | The Government confirms this is acceptable. | None. |
| 5 | Solicitation | 64 | L.5.3.6 | Subcontracts | Reference Page 64, L.5.3.6 Subcontracts. Will the Government please clarify what is meant by the use of the words "uncosted elements" relative to a subcontractor's proposed pricing? | "Uncosted elements" are any variables in the cost buildup that are not measured in either dollars or percentages of dollars: For example: labor categories, descriptions of labor categories, hours, materials, WBS breakout of hours, trips, etc. | None. |
| 6 | Solicitation | 64 | L.5.3.8 | Equipment, Materials and ODCs | Reference Page 64, L.5.3.8. There is a reference in this paragraph to CPIF CLINs. Will the Government please remove this language since there is no CPIF CLIN being solicited for this opportunity? | The Government does not have any CPIF CLINS, and therefore will remove the language for this in Section L. | Amended, to remove two references to CPIF (Sections L.5.3.5. and L.5.3.8. |
| 7 | Solicitation | 64 | L.5.3.8 | Equipment, Materials and ODCs | Reference Page 64, L.5.3.8, Will the Government please clarify that only those individual line items for equipment, materials and ODCs exceeding $25,000, when unit costs are multiplied by quantities, require supporting documentation; all other individual line items resulting in under $25,000 do not require supporting documentation? | Line items for equipment, materials and OCDs under $25,000.00 do not require supporting documentation from the offeror. | None. |
| 8 | Solicitation | 73 | M.5.4.1 | Cost Price Evaluation | Reference Page 73, M.5.4.1 Cost Price Evaluation. This paragraph states that the Government will perform a cost realism analysis on CR CLINS and a price analysis for fair and reasonable for the basic IDIQ award. However, there is no requirement for pricing/costing to be submitted at the IDIQ level. Will the Government please clarify this evaluation factor? | Pricing information is not requested at the IDIQ level, only at the sample task order level. Section M.5.4.1 shall be updated. | Amended M.5.4.1 to delete langaue stating "both the base IDIQ and" |
| 9 | RFP/PWS | 14 | C.3.9. | On Site Workers | Reference Page 14, C.3.9. This paragraph states "... for contractor personnel working on-site, the Contractor shall appoint a Task Manager, who shall have authority over and responsibility for their Contractor personnel. In the absence of the Task Manager, an Alternate shall be appointed by the Contractor to serve as Program Manager." Please confirm that the "Alternate shall be appointed by the contractor" to serve as Task Manager not Program Manager. | This shall state, "... for contractor personnel working on-site, the Contractor shall appoint a Task Manager, who shall have authority over and responsibility for their Contractor personnel. In the absence of the Task Manager, an Alternate shall be appointed by the Contractor to serve as Task Manager." | Amended C.3.9. |
| 10 | Solicitation | 62 | L.4.3.4. | Volume III Past Performance | Reference Page 62, Paragraph L.4.3.4. Will the government please confirm that FAR 52.219-8 is applicable to this solicitation since it is a small business set aside? | Per FAR 19.708, Far Clause 52.219-8 will be inserted when the contract is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Small business concerns should be utilized in subcontracting to the maximum extent practicable. | None. |
| 11 | Solicitation | 61 | L.3.2 | Proposal Instructions, Program Management | Reference Page 61, L.3.2 Proposal Instructions, Program Management. It appears M.5.1.3 should be moved to Factor 2 Program Management to align with the instructions. | Move M.5.1.3. to M5.2.4. | Amended. |
| 12 | Solicitation | 2 | A.3 | Questions and Answers | Reference Page 2, Paragraph A.3 Questions and Answers. The solicitation indicates, "NOTE: A “Questions and Answers” Excel Spreadsheet from the posted Special Notice, W911SR-19-R-CBARR, is also attached for reference." Can the Government please indicate whether the Q&A from the posted special notice should be considered a part of the final solicitation? Also, if there is a discrepancy between the Q&A and the final solicitation, please confirm the final solicitation takes precedent. | The Q&A was a reference to the special notice. The only factors to be considered in the offeror's proposal are those listed in the solicitation, W911SR-19-R-0001. | None. |
| 13 | Solicitation | 57 | L.1.1 | Proposal Submission via ASSIST | Reference page 57, L.1.1. Paragraph L.1.1 states "The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted electronically via the Virtual Contracting Enterprise-Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (VCE-ASSIST/ASSIST) at https://assist1.army.mil/. More detailed instructions for the use of ASSIST can be found at Section F." The referenced tool (VCE-ASSIST/ASSIST) is for US Government source selection use only and contractor proposals do not appear to be able to submitted via this website. Additional, there is no information regarding ASSIST in Section F. Will the Government please clarify how the proposal is to be submitted and provide instructions, if needed, on how/where to access the site? | The Government has amended instructions in section L.1.1. | Amended. |
| 14 | Solicitation | 58 | L.2.2 | Technical Volume (no pricing) | Reference Page 58, Paragraph L.2.2. The paragraph states “The Offeror shall provide its understanding of the evaluation task PWS and provide a detailed discussion of how the task would be executed to meet requirements of the PWS, including all costs related to the proposed execution of the Evaluation Task.” Since cost/pricing is not to be included in Volume I per L.1.3, and L.2.4 requires the inclusion of Uncosted Information for Cost Realism Analysis for execution of the Evaluation Task, will the Government please reword this sentence to read “The Offeror shall provide its understanding of the evaluation task PWS and provide a detailed discussion of how the task would be executed to meet requirements of the PWS.” | The Government concurs and will update this sentence | Amended section L.2.2 |
| 15 | Solicitation | 65 | L.7.3 | Volume References | Reference Page 65, Paragraph L.7.3. Will the Government please correct the Volume number references in this section as follows: The Offeror shall include cost information ONLY in Volume IV – Cost/Price. Inclusion of cost data in Volumes I through III and Volume V will not be considered and the pages with the cost data in these volumes will be removed from the proposal prior to evaluation. | The Offeror shall include cost information ONLY in Volume IV – Cost/Price. Inclusion of cost data in Volumes I through III and Volume V will not be considered and the pages with the cost data in these volumes will be removed from the proposal prior to evaluation. | Amended section L.7.3. |
| 16 | Solicitation | 60 | L.3.5 | Teaming Partner Agreements | Reference Page 60, L.3.5 Teaming Partner Agreements. Will the Government please exclude the partner teaming agreements from page count? | Teaming agreements will not be included in the page count. | Amended in secion L.1.2.2. |
| 17 | Solicitation | 61 | L.4.1 | Past Performance | Reference Page 61, Paragraph L.4.1 states "Recent means any contract in which the Offeror has successfully supported CBRNE efforts, as defined in the PWS, within the last three years of this solicitation. Relevant means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully completed projects that are similar to the solicited project in scope, size, and/or complexity. Scope relevancy is defined as those projects that demonstrate past performance in the management and operation of fixed and mobile laboratories, the inspection of workplaces using hazardous materials, and the performance of research related to the detection and effects of chemical and biological agents." Section L.4.3.1 states "“Relevant” means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully developed, designed, and manufactured a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosives detection systems.“Recent” means any contract under which any development, design or manufacturing has taken place within the last three (3) years of issuance of this solicitation." The definition of Recent and Relevant in section L.4.3.1 is not consistent with the PWS. Can the Government please confirm the definition of relevant and recent in Section L.4.1 is the correct definition? | The definition of recent is amended at L.4.1. to state: "Recent means any contract under which any development, design or manufacturing has taken place within the last three (3) years of issuance of this solicitation." The definition of relevant is stated in L.4.1., and amended from L.4.3.1. | Amended. |
| 18 | Solicitation | 61 | L.4.2 | Past Performance Format | Reference Page 61, L.4.2 Past Performance Format. The solicitation states "Offeror can customize formatting; however basic layout should be reflective of the example provided." Can the Government please clarify what example this is referring to? | Offeror shall adhere to formatting guidelines set forth in L.1.2.2. | Amended L.4.2. |
| 19 | Solicitation | 62 | L.4.3.2 | Past Performance | Reference Page 62, L.4.3.2 Past Performance. The solicitation states "The following information shall be included for each award referenced on Government or commercialcontracts or task orders completed or at least 90 percent completed by the Offeror/sub-contractor as a prime contractor or major subcontractor within the past three (3) years." Can the Government please confirm the 90% applies only to the base period as stated in the Q&A? | Yes, as stated in the Special Notice Q&A. | None. |
| 20 | Solicitation | 62 | L..4.3.2.9 | Past Performance | Reference Page 62, Paragraph L.4.3.2.9. The paragraph states "The Offeror shall not exceed two (2) pages for each contract cited." However, the Offeror is only permitted to submit 5 past performance citations and the total page limit for the past performance volume is 25 pages. Would the Government please consider removing the page restriction for each past performance citation as long as we do not exceed the 25 page limit for the volume? | Offerors may use up to 25 pages to detail any pertinent past performance information and are not limited to a page count for any one particular past performance citation. | Amended L.4.3.2.9. |
| 21 | Solicitation | 71 | M.5.2.3 | Evaluation Factors | Reference Page 71, M.5.2.3 Evaluation Factors. The solicitation states "The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed personnel possess the qualifications, training, education, skills, knowledge, and abilities, as well as related experience in the design, fabrication and production of systems similar in nature to the effort." This is not consistent with the PWS as there is no production of systems. Can the Government please remove this reference? | There are no production systems; the Government has amended the language in M.5.2.3. | Amended Section M.5.2.3. |
| 22 | Solicitation | 71 | M. 5.3.2 | Appendix Reference | Reference Page 71, M.5.2.3 Appendix References. The solicitation states "Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix C." Can the Government please provide the referenced Appendix C? | The Government believes this question was in reference to M.5.3.2. As such, the solicitation will be amended here to state: "Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment 5." | Amended M.5.2.3. |
| 23 | Solicitation | 71 | M.5.3.4 | Past Performance | Reference Page 71, M.5.3.4, Past Performance. The solicitation states "Offerors shall submit Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of the RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by the RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available." Please confirm this requirement is associated only with the up to 5 past performance references used in the past performance volume and not to all contracts that are relevant. | The Offeror should submit up to five past performance efforts for evaluation. An exhaustive list of all contracts that have been awarded to the offeror is not required or necessary. | None. |
| 24 | CBARR Solicitation | 61 | L.4.3.1 | Past Performance Relevancy | Regarding the Past Performance Volume, the Government requirement for the contractor's and subcontractor's contract references to be "Relevant" means "performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully developed, designed, and manufactured a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosives detection systems". This requirement is so stringent, that to the best of our knowledge, it will limit the competition such that only one small business at most will be able to demonstrate such performance. Furthermore, this Government requirement is a significant departure from the Government requirement provided in the Draft RFP dated 7 December 2018 in which "Relevancy" is defined as those projects that demonstrate past performance in the management and operation of fixed and mobile laboratories, the inspection of workplaces using hazardous materials, and the performance of research related to the detection and effects of chemical biological agents. In order to provide a greater likelihood of competition on this solicitation, will the Government consider EITHER replacing the current "Relevant" contract references requirement with the "Relevancy" requirement presented in the Draft RFP OR modify the current "Relevant" contract references requirement to state "performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully developed, designed or manufactured a chemical...systems" ? | See comments from question 17. | None. |
File details come from the government source that posted it.