STEPSS Solicitation questions 20211020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W911SR21R0002
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amend 5_ Revised Amendment 4.docx | DOCX document | |
| W911SR-21-R-0002_UPdated 4Nov21.pdf | ||
| B08 W911SR-21-R-0002 20211104.pdf | ||
| Amendment 4 Notes and Updates.docx | DOCX document | |
| A03_STEPSS CDRLs _FINAL.pdf | ||
| W911SR-21-R-0002 20211027.pdf | ||
| Followup Questions for Q-A response- 20211022.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment A-Past Performance Questionnaire_FINAL.pdf | ||
| A03_STEPSS CDRL Listing 14OCT21.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W911SR-21-R-0002 20211020.pdf | ||
| W911SR-21-R-0002.pdf | ||
| STEPSS Solicition questions.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W911SR-21-R-0002.pdf | ||
| STEPSS_QASP_Final_21SEP2021.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 5-Past Performance Questionnaire_FINAL.doc | DOC document | |
| STEPSS CDRLs.doc | DOC document | |
| STEPS- DD254.docx | DOCX document | |
| W911SR-21-R-0002.pdf |
Show all 18
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
| SOLICITATION W911SR-21-9-0002 (STEPSS) | |
| QUESTION | ANSWER |
| You released another “Draft” RFP, first one o/a 25 May, and now the latest one on 28 Sep…correct? | There was one Draft RFP posted in May. This one is the actual "live" request for proposal. |
| The Final RFP, with the official suspense date for proposal submissions are currently TBD…correct? | The Official submission date for all proposals is November 16, 2021 by 12:00. RFP, block 9, has been updated to reflect this. |
| Based on SAMs info, questions are due NLT 5 Oct, but in the solicitation (Executive summary section) it indicates 1 Nov. Can you clarify which one is correct. | Questions was due October 5. Proposals are due November 16, 2021. |
| Is the summary section required for each file in or out of page count | Summary section does not count towards the page count. RFP has been updated in Section L, General Instructions. |
| “Evaluation of past performance shall be IAW this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment A.” Please describe the “plan” for evaluation. | Sentence removed from the RFP. Past Performance will be evaluated IAW Section M of the RFP. No other "plan" exists. |
| Evaluation of past performance shall be IAW this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment A.” Please identify the forms to which this refers. Attachment A appears to be a questionnaire | RFP updated to refer offerors to use the questionnaire at Attachment A for all past performance submissions. |
| Past performance volume notes “offeror can customize formatting, however the basic layout should be reflective of the sample provided”. What sample is the Government referencing? | Section L(d)(1) has been changed to read, "The Offeror can customize the formatting of the Past Performance volume." All references to "examples" and "samples" have been removed. No sample will be provided. |
| What is the Government’s expectation regarding submitting a Small Business Subcontracting Plan whereby offerors shall calculate goals as a percentage of total contract dollars when there is no cost being submitted (no cost volume)? | For the purposes of developing goals for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, offerors should use the total contract value of $869,061,571 identified in the RFP, page 2, executive summary, paragraph A.4. |
| Could the Government please explain the rationale for removing machine learning and artificial intelligence that was present in the draft?)? | Machine learning and artificial intelligence were not removed. Formatting error in Section C.2.2.4 , Page 8, the language describing Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence should be a separate paragraph and not a part of, or a subset of, "Radiological/Nuclear". Section C has been updated to fix the formatting issue. |
| Could an other-than-small business prime be allowed to compete for task orders that would otherwise be restricted to small business primes if the large business prime subcontracts more than 51% of the work to qualified small business partners? | Eligible small business offerors may team with other-than-small-businesses as subcontractors, ensuring that they remain compliant with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. If a task order is solicited as restricted to small business IAW RFP, page 53, paragraph H.8, then only small business offerors eligible at time of offer for the order may submit a proposal. |
| Would the Government consider reducing the small business set-aside threshold to $5 million when the results of their market research indicated that there are two or more capable small businesses? | Market research will be conducted at the task order level. The rule of two will apply at all dollar values. Section H.8.1 has been updated to reflect this. |
| The last page of the RFP identifies page 129 of 183. Could the Government please supply the remaining pages? | Solicitation numbering fixed. |
| Section L.2.b. states Offerors shall not submit any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals. All concerns shall be addressed by submitting questions by the date specified in this solicitation. |
| Would the Government please confirm where the date is specified in the solicitation? | The due date for questions was stated in paragraph A.6 of the Executive Summary and was October 5. |
| Section L.3.d.(1) provides instructions for Volume III, Factor 3 - Past Performance and states "The Offeror can customize formatting; however, basic layout should be reflective of the example provided." |
| Would the Government please clarify the location of the example referenced? | Answered. See response to question 9. |
| Section L.1 (page 108) includes Chart 1 - Proposal Structure and specifies that proposals will consist of five volumes. Section L.3.1 details the requirements for the Offeror's Cover Letter. |
| Would the Government please specify whether the Cover Letter should be submitted a separate file or within one of the five (5) Volumes? | Section L(2)(a) of the RFP has been updated to clarify that the cover letter should be submitted independent of any of the five volumes. |
| Section L.1 states "The cover letters, proposal introductions, title page, Table of Contents, List of Tables/Figures, resumes, commitment letters and the cross reference matrices and representation and certifications are not included in the page count limitations." Section L.2.b states "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." |
| Would the Government please clarify whether "Proposal Introductions" as referenced in L.1 and "Summary Section" as referenced in L.2.b are terms used synonymously? Is so, would the Government confirm that Summary Sections (abstracts) are exempted form the page count limitations? | All references to "proposal introductions" have been removed and replaced with the words "summary sections". |
| Section C.5.5 states "The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal." This requirement does not appear to be refenced in Section L/Section M. |
| Is the Telecommuting Program Plan to be submitted in Volume II - Management Approach? If so, is it exempted from the Page Limitation for this Volume? | Sections L(c)(6) and M(b)(6) have been updated to include requirements for a telecommuting plan. |
| Section H.2.5 indicates that contract post-award oversight of the use of laboratory animals shall be the responsibility of the contractor’s Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC). The contract manager will notify the Contracting Officer in writing of any significant changes to the proposed use of animals which was the basis for contract award. |
Would the Government please indicate whether members of the ACUC are considered key personnel? No, ACUC members are not considered key personnel for the base IDIQ contract.
Section L.3.b.(1) states “Entity” shall be the prime contractor and may include the corporate experience of any major proposed subcontractor(s), teaming partner IAW FAR Subpart 9.6, or legal joint venture, performing more than 10% of the required services. Section L.3.b(2) states Offerors shall submit a minimum of three and a maximum of five examples of Government and/or commercial contracts or task orders.
Would the Government please clarify any requirements as to how many examples must be submitted by the Prime Offeror and how many may be submitted by major subcontractors?
| Of the three required, at least 2 of the examples provided shall be provided for the prime contract holder. Section L(2)(b)(2)(h) has been added to clarify this. | |
| In the QASP, CDRL A026 is titled Training Plans. In the CDRLs, it is titled Training Records. Which is correct, Training Plans or Training Records? | They are both correct because the Title of Data Item in Block 2 is Training Program Development and Management Plan. However Block 3 Subtitle, allows the Government to be more specific, this is where we have identified Training Records as the specific deliverable. |
| Section L.3.c(2)(a) indicates Resumes will not be included in the proposal page count limit and should be included in Volume V. Section M.b.2 indicates all key/essential personnel resumes will be evaluated as part of the evaluation for Factor 2: Management Approach. |
| Would the Government consider allowing Offerors to include the Resume as an attachment to improve readability? | Resumes can be submitted as appendices to Volume II. |
| Section L.3.f provides the instructions for the contents of Volume V - General. |
| Would the Government please confirm that a compliant Volume V submission consist of the following completed items: SF-33; Section G (p. 45-48 in the PDF file); Section K (p. 76-106), and Pages 118-124? | Section L(f) has been updated and includes everything that should be contained within Volume V. | |
| Given the magnitude of information required, to include Past performance Questionnaires, would the Government please consider issuing an extension to the due date for Offeror proposals, affording Offerors 45 days to prepare proposal responses? | The Government has extended the proposal submission deadline to 16 November 2021. The RFP has been updated accordingly. | |
| L.3.d.1 states: Scope relevancy is defined as those projects that demonstrate past performance in the management and execution of tasks related to Engineering Support, Research and Technology Support, and Chemical and Biological Demilitarization and Operations." |
| Would the Government please clarify whether to be determined relevant, an individual project reference is required to demonstrate past performance in the management and execution of tasks in all three areas? Or, whether and individual project may be rated as relevant provided the reference demonstrates the management and execution of tasks related to at least one of the three task areas referenced? | An individual project may be rated as relevant if it demonstrates the management and execution of tasks related to at least one of the three task areas. | |
| Will the Government please consider renumbering of the actual pages of the Solicitation? The current numbering causes confusion when referencing items in the solicitation. | Solicitation numbering fixed. | |
| On page 115 of the solicitation, Section L.3.d.(1) [Past Performance] it states "Offeror’s may submit ongoing projects, but they must be at least 50% physically complete in their performance. Would the government please confirm that "50 % physically complete" means that at least 50% of the period of performance inclusive of option periods has been completed? For example, a contract with a base and four option years would be 50% physically complete at 2 1/2 years. | The Government confirms that the example provided is correct. | |
| Section L.3.d.(1), page 115 of the solicitation, [Past Performance] it states "The Offeror will submit information on at least (3) three, but not more than (5) five similar projects." Will the government please define "similar" in terms of cost, scope and complexity? | The word "similar" as used in the RFP relates to the relevancy of each past performance example. IAW Section L(3)(d) of the RFP, "Scope relevancy is defined as those projects that demonstrate past performance in the management and execution of tasks related to Engineering Support, Research and Technology Support, or Chemical and Biological Demilitarization and Operations." | |
| In Section L.3.d.(1), page 116 of the solicitation [Past Performance] it states "The Offeror can customize formatting; however, basic layout should be reflective of the example provided." Will the Government please provide the example? | Answered. See response to question 9. | |
| In Section L.3.d.(4), page 116 of the solicitation, [Past Performance] it states "The Offeror shall complete Part I of the questionnaire and submit the questionnaire to the Contracting Officer (KO), Contract Specialist (KS) via email." Will the Government please confirm that this should state "....submit the questionnaire to the contractual Point of Contact (respondent) for completion and submission back to the Solicitation Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist"? | Section L(2)(d)(iii) has been updated to provide clarity on questionnaire submission requirements. | |
| Section M.a, page 125, it states "If discussions are necessary, Offerors selected to participate in discussions IAW the Competitive Range Determination, will be provided with Evaluation Notices (ENs)." Since a cost volume is not required for this solicitation how will the government determine the Competitive Range? | IAW the RFP and FAR 15.304(c)(ii)(A)(3), award will be made to all qualifying offerors. IAW FAR 2.101, a qualifying offerors is defined as, "means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(D))." Cost is not a factor in establishing the competitive range in this procurement. | |
| In Section C. 5.5, [Place of Performance], it states "The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal." Will the Government please clarify the requirement? |
A. Is the actual Telecommuting Program Plan required to be submitted with the proposal; or is the Government seeking affirmation that the contractor has a documented Telecommuting Program Plan?
B. In which section is the Telecommuting Program Plan to be addressed since it is not included in the instructions?
C. If the answer to question A. above is yes, please confirm that the Plan will be excluded from page count.
| D. If a Plan is to be submitted, will the Government please provide evaluation criteria since it is not mentioned in Section M? | Answered. See response to question 19. | |
| For Section C.5.7.1 [Key Personnel] and In the Clearance & Experience column for Scientist (Level III), it states "…9 years of Scientist Level II demonstrated skills/expertise…."; however, there is no Scientist Level II labor category. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | The labor categories listed in section C, 5.7.1 may be considered key personnel at the task order level. Skills and Experience qualifications are being provided for awareness to potential bidders. Scientist II is not considered potential key personnel at the base IDIQ level, so skills and experience requirements are not listed. | |
| Section C.5.7.1 [Key Personnel] and in the Clearance & Experience column for Technical (Level III), it states "…9 years of demonstrated Technician Level II skills/expertise…."; however, there is no Technician Level II labor category. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | Answered. See response to question 34. | |
| Section C.5.7.2, states "All proposed substitutions must be submitted in writing 30 days (180 days if security clearance is to be obtained) in advance of the proposed substitutions to the Contracting Officer. If a key personnel were to resign or be terminated from employment, this timeline would not be able to be met. Additionally, it would be difficult to know of a proposed substitution requirement 180 days in advance. |
| Will the Government please adjust the language to state "All proposed substitutions must be submitted in writing 30 days in advance of the proposed substitutions, if such advanced knowledge is available.....All proposed substitutions will be required to have a Secret security clearance at the time of substitution." | The language in this section has been updated to provide clarity. | |
| Section C.6.1.3 appears to have language missing regarding "the following personnel are authorized to interact with the Contractors managerial, designated representative and supervisory personnel:" Section C.6.1.6 is the same language as 6.1.3, however, there are 3 bullets after 6.1.6 that do not seem to relate to the "the following personnel are authorized to interact with the Contractors managerial, designated representative and supervisory personnel:" Will the Government please review these two sections and adjust/correct/remove as needed to clarify the requirement? | The language in this section has been updated to provide clarity. | |
| Section C.6.1.4 refers to ELIN A025 for preparation of a hiring, training and cross-training plan, however the correct reference is ELIN A026. Will the Government please correct the reference? | Section C, 6.1.4 has been updated. | |
| In reviewing the CDRLS, we have found that many of the PWS references with the CDRLs are incorrect and do not align with the correct PWS sections. Also, many of the references to the CDRLs within the PWS are incorrect as illustrated by the previous question. Also, ELIN A026 does not have a frequency defined. Will the Government please review the CDRLs and correct as needed? | The CDRLs have been updated. | |
| Section C.11.0 [Transition] refers to Task Order One which is not being solicited at this time. Will the Government please clarify the intent of this section (11.0 - 11.1.2) and whether or not it needs to be addressed within the proposal since it is not applicable to the IDIQ award? | Transition does not need to be addressed at the ID/IQ level, but may be included as part of task order proposal requirements. It is anticipated that the start of work meeting will be task order 01. | |
| Section H.1.14 [Medical Examinations] states "Cost of the testing shall be reimbursed as part of the contractor indirect costs." Historically, when medical examinations are required for positions such as those requiring PRP certification, costs associated with medical exams, drug screening, etc. are directly charged to the respective contract that the PRP is associated with. Will the Government please confirm that medical examinations and other requirements to perform a specific function or duty will, in fact, be chargeable to the contract/task order? | Section H.1.14 has been changed to read, "Whenever appropriate, medical examinations and other requirements will be charged to the specific task order." | |
| Section H.7.2 - states "In the event a Task Order is restricted to small businesses in accordance with H.9…". Section H.8 Task Orders Restricted to Small Businesses is the correct section. Will the Government please correct this reference to reflect H.8? | Section H.7.2 has been updated. | |
| For Section H.11 [Small Business Participation] will the Government please confirm that this section does not apply to small business concerns? | Section H.11 has been updated. | |
| Referencing Section L, Page 108 of 183, will the Government please allow for Acronym lists to be excluded from page count? | Acronym Lists/Glossaries are excluded from the page count and can be included in Volume V. RFP Section L(2)(f) has been updated to reflect this. | |
| Section L, Page 108 of 183, states "Schedules and organizational charts will count as one (1) page. Will the Government please confirm that if an organizational chart or schedule does not take up 1 page, it will not be counted as 1 page; further, if an organizational chart or schedule is required to be submitted for readability on an 11 x 17 fold out page, it will be counted as 1 page? | Section L, General Instructions has been updated in the RFP to clarify this. | |
| Section L, page 114 of 183, C.(1)(c ) states: "Offeror's shall describe potential risks of not being able to retain the proposed suite of team members…." Will the Government please clarify this requirement? Is the Government requesting we describe potential personnel retention risks even if no teaming partners are proposed? | If no teaming partners are proposed to meet the requirement, then no potential risks can be determined or evaluated. | |
| Section L.3.d. (1), page 116 of 183 states "The Offeror may provide additional information for any references cited regarding any awards received for projects described." Will the Government please confirm that these cited references are excluded from page count? | Section L(f) has been updated and includes everything that should be contained within Volume V. | |
| For Section L.3.d (4), page 116 of 183, will the Government please confirm that the list of all POCs who were sent a past performance questionnaire is excluded from page count? | The list of POCs who were sent past performance questionnaires is not excluded from the page count. | |
| For Section L3.d (5), page 116 of 183, will the Government please confirm that the required information is excluded from page count? | The requirements of L(3)(d)(5) are not excluded from the page count. | |
| For Section L.3.f, page 118 of 183, [Volume V - General] will the Government please advise what information needs to be completed and included from Section G - Contract Administration Data as there are no fields requiring fill in. | Any reference to Section G has been removed from the Volume V requirements in the RFP. | |
| Section M, Page 126 of 183 Factor 2: Management, (2) - will the Government please adjust the language to reflect evaluation of the one key resume requirement for the Program Manager? | Confirmed. Only one resume, for a Program Manager, is required for the IDIQ proposal. Additional key personnel may be required at the task order level. | |
| Section M, Page 128 of 183, c. Evaluation Approach (2). The last sentence states "The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule." Since this is an IDIQ offering, there is no schedule associated with the requirements. Will the Government please consider adjusting the language to state "as required within the PWS and future awarded Task Orders"? | Section M(c)(2) has been updated to provide clarity. | |
| Section L, Volume III Past Performance states "Offeror's may submit ongoing projects, but they must be at least 50% physically complete in their performance." Section M, Page 129 of 183, evaluation criteria narrative for Past Performance states "Recent projects must have a completion date no earlier than five years prior to the original date of issuance of this RFP. Projects that do not meet this definition of recent will not be considered." Will the Government please confirm that projects considered are not REQUIRED to be completed within the last five years prior to the original date of issuance of this RFP, however, if they are completed, they have to be within the five year period? | The Government confirms that active contracts which are 50% or more complete should be used as past performance examples. Contracts used as past performance examples, and which are complete, must have a completion date within 5 years of the issuance of this RFP. | |
| For Section C.2.2.4 , Page 8, please confirm that the language describing Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence should be a separate paragraph and not a part of, or a subset of, "Radiological/Nuclear" . | Answered. See response to question 11. | |
| Section L 2.b, page 109 of 183 [Content Requirement], states “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.” |
| Will the Government please confirm that “Summary Section” and the previous mention of “proposal introductions” on page 108 of 183 (with proposal introductions being excluded from page count) are one in the same? Or does the Government require a Summary Section AND a Proposal Introduction? If the latter, is the Summary Section excluded from page count as well? | Answered. See responses to questions 6 and 18. |
| There appears to be a disconnect in requirements between demonstration of Corporate Experience (section L.3.b.(1) on page 111 of 183) and demonstration of Past Performance (section L.3.d.(1) on page 115 of 183). |
To demonstrate corporate experience, the requirement states "describing the Offeror's corporate experience in at least 1 function area" and requires the provision of a narrative description of at least 10 FTEs within the scope of one of the 3 areas listed (engineering, R&T and CB Demil/Ops).
To demonstrate past performance, the requirement states "demonstrate past performance in the management and execution of tasks related to Engineering Support, Research and Technology Support, and Chemical and Biological Demilitarization and Operations", where it appears that all 3 functional areas must be demonstrated.
| Will the Government please clarify the requirement to align corporate experience and past performance demonstrations (e.g., either require demonstration of 1 [or more] functional areas or all functional areas)? | The Government can confirm that for both the past performance factor and corporate experience section, Offerors can show experience/past performance in any or all of the functional areas. | |
| Since the future awarded IDIQ contract will not be a domain-driven contract (e.g., an award in one or more of the three functional areas required to support), how will the Government ensure that it can competitively fulfill all three functional areas of support for future task orders if only 1 functional area needs to be demonstrated by an offeror? | The Government performed market research supporting the present procurement method. Further, the market research indicated there would be a fair opportunity in each of the functional areas. | |
| A significant amount of resources are required to submit proposals. With the evaluation criteria of Acceptable/Unacceptable AND the potential ability, dependent on the answers to the above 2 questions, to have offerors only demonstrate 1 functional area of experience/past performance, the Government will likely be awarding potentially hundreds of IDIQ awards to awardees who do not have the demonstrated experience or past performance in all 3 functional areas. Typically, Task Order Requests under a multiple award IDIQ will not require past performance/corporate experience be demonstrated with proposal responses. Will past performance be required to be demonstrated in future solicited Task Orders so that those experiences can be reviewed (which will add additional costs to awardees proposal responses)? | IAW Section A.3 of the RFP, the Government intends to use Best Value-Trade Offs for the majority of STEPSS task/delivery orders but reserves the right to use Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) should circumstances prove advantageous to the Government. Past performance may or may not be a factor in the source selection process at the task order level. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the requirements. | |
| Section A.6 of the solicitation identifies a proposal submission date, however the Solicitation does not include a date by which questions must be submitted. Will the Government please modify the Solicitation to include a date by which questions must be submitted? | Answered. See response for question 15. | |
| SF 33 states “Draft” -- is this a Draft or Final RFP? If final, will a clean version of the SF 33 be released so offerors can sign and submit with their offer? | The DRAFT mark was included in error. The RFP posted on 29 September 2021 is the official RFP. | |
| A.6 states “All questions should be directed to dana.y.nunley.civ@army.mil and Melissa.a.bettinger.civ@army.mil no later than 12:00 PM EST 01 November 2021”, however, sam.gov states “The Government will allow questions until 3:00 pm EDT on 05 October 2021 and will respond by 08 October 2021 but does not intend to extend the deadline for proposal submissions. All proposals and questions should be directed to dana.y.nunley.civ@army.mil and Melissa.a.bettinger.civ@army.mil no later than 12:00 PM EST 01 November 2021”. Will the Government revise the solicitation to correct the questions due date and possibly include the proposal due date and time to the posted information in sam.gov? | Section A.6 of the RFP has been updated to provide clarity. | |
| 5.1. Ordering Period states “The contract ordering period consist of a five year (60mth) base period and five year (60mth) option period from the effective date of award. The period of performance for all task orders must be complete no later than twelve months of the last day of the ordering period”; however, A.4 and 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY. (OCT 1995), paragraph (d) state all task orders under the base period must be completed 36 months of the expiration of the base ordering period. Will the solicitation be revised to correct this inconsistency? | Clause 52.216-22 updated. | |
| Under the draft RFP Q&A, the Government stated DFARS 252.204-7021 will be removed and contractors are expected to adhere to NIST 800-171. Will this DFARS clause be removed? | Clause 252.204-7021 has been deleted. | |
| SECTION L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, 2. PROPOSAL FILES, b. Content Requirement states “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". Is this applicable to Volume IV, Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | The summary section is not required for the SBS volume. Section L(1)(b) has been updated to reflect this. | |
| The PWS states "The Program Manager is NOT a direct labor category for pricing purposes, as it would be considered part of the Contractor's overhead." We interpret this statement to mean at the IDIQ level. Would the government consider revising the statement to include the word IDIQ to read "The Program Manager is NOT a direct labor category at the IDIQ level for pricing purposes, as it would be considered part of the Contractor's overhead?" | The language in this section has been updated to provide clarity. | |
| The PWS states "The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal." Section L is silent on where this plan would be incorporated and how it would impact existing page counts. Can the government please clarify where the plan should be incorporated and how it will impact the page count of the volume it gets incorporated into? | Answered. See response to question 19. | |
| The PWS states "The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal." Can the Government clarify content required for the Telecommuting Program Plan? Also, will the Telecommuting Program Plan be evaluated and if so, what is the criteria? | Answered. See response to question 19. | |
| The instructions state "The Offeror shall specifically describe the major work that its subcontractors will perform". Given the page count limitation, would the Government consider moving this requirement from Volume III to Volume IV? | No. This information shall remain in Volume III. | |
| The instructions state "Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed major subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor's past performance evaluation with the Offeror during negotiations". Given the page count limitation, would the Government consider excluding the subcontractor consent documentation from Volume III's page count? | Consent documents are excluded from Volume III's page count but should be no loner than one page in length and can be added as an appendix to Volume III. Any information contained within the consent letter that can be construed as additional past performance proposal information for the subcontractor will not be considered. | |
| The instructions state "Offerors shall include in their proposal the written consent of their proposed major subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor's past performance evaluation with the Offeror during negotiations". If an offeror is not using any subcontractor past performance, is written consent still required? | No, if an offeror is not using any subcontractor's past performance information, consent is not required. | |
| For the past performance factor, experience is to be shown “related to Engineering Support, Research and Technology Support, and Chemical and Biological Demilitarization and Operations.” The offeror interprets this statement on tasking for “Engineering Support, Research and Technology Support, and Chemical and Biological Demilitarization and Operations” to be a reference to these same functional areas described in Section L.3.b(1), pages 111-112. Please confirm or clarify. | Yes, both sections reference the same functional areas. | |
| Please provide clarification on the proposal due date in the RFP document, which currently states: “A.6 All questions should be directed to dana.y.nunley.civ@army.mil and Melissa.a.bettinger.civ@army.mil no later than 12:00 PM EST 01 November 2021.” | Answered. See response for question 61. | |
| The SF33 is watermarked “Draft.” Please confirm that this is the final RFP. | Answered. See response for question 60. | |
| The instructions state that Offers will complete section G – Contract Administration Data. However, this section does not include any fill-in information or signature blocks. Please confirm that this section is required in the response. | Answered. See response for question 50. | |
| For the Corporate Experience, major proposed subcontractor(s) teaming partner is deemed as performing more than 10% of the required services. Since the procurement is IDIQ, can the Government clarify whether the applicability should be at the IDIQ level, or remove the restriction of major subcontractor at this time? | The Government confirms that the applicability of this requirement is at the IDIQ level. | |
| For the Corporate Experience, Corporate Experience will have to demonstrate a service size of 10 FTEs or greater. Since the procurement covers all areas of Engineering Support, Research & Technology Support, and Disposal Operations, the Government will be best served to include programs under 10 FTEs particularly where offerors are providing niche capabilities/services. Would the Government consider requiring “at least one” Corporate Experience demonstrate a services size greater than or equal to 10 FTEs? | For examples related to Corporate Experience, offerors shall demonstrate corporate experience in contracts/task orders of a sufficient size (at least 10 FTE employees, in aggregate) and scope of the STEPSS contract. | |
| Section L.3.a.2 is requiring the following for the cover letter (page 110) to certify that Offer is either a small business or an OTSB IAW NAICS 541715 and a small business size standard of 1,000 employees; But the Management Plan (page 117) shows requirements for Small Business Plan subcontracting. Can the Government clarify that this IDIQ is open to all offerors? | The IDIQ is open to all offerors. | |
| Please clarify the intent of requirement to provide “recent information on its past performance over the past five (5) years which demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan” Volume III Past Performance. Is this only for the past performance referenced in this volume or for overall corporate experience? Please advise. | Offerors shall submit the small business past performance data for the same contract references that they identify otherwise in their past performance volume. | |
| If this request for the offeror to provide “recent information on its past performance over the past five (5) years which demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Subcontracting Plan” is based on corporate-wide experience, we request that this requirement is exempt from the page count (10 pages) for Volume III Past Performance, or this is included in Volume IV Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Please advise. | This information must be contained in Volume IV and counts towards the page count. | |
| Given the 10 page count for Volume III Past Performance, the offeror request that “written consent of their proposed major subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractor’s past performance evaluation with the Offeror during negotiations” to be exempt from the Volume III page count. | Answered. See response to question 69. | |
| H.11.1 states that “Small business participation shall be proposed for each task order in accordance with the RFP for the task order. Proposed small business participation goals for each task order shall be incorporated in the task order as a commitment and contractual requirement.” |
a. Is a Participation Pan required at the IDIQ level or only the TO level?
b. Will offerors have to submit a participation plan for each TO?
c. How will participation goals be proposed for each TO? a. A Participation Plan only applies to task orders that are unrestricted and use the Best Value Tradeoff source selection processes.
b. See above.
C. Offerors should propose SB minimum contractual requirements based on their proposed methodology and historical performance for similar contracts.
| H.11.2 states “For each task order, contractors shall submit a small business participation report to the Contracting Officer on a simi-annually basis following the instructions below.” Will the Government provide the method they want us to use to submit these simi-annual reports? For example, separate excel spreadsheet and email, etc.? | ||
| This requirement seems to mirror regular ISR reporting requirements, however ISR reports are done at the IDIQ level and not at the TO level. Furthermore, ISRs are reported with %s stated as % of subk dollars and not of TCV. Can the Government clarify the need for reporting at IDIQ level as well as TO level? | Reporting requirements will be identified at the task order level via a CDRL. The reporting requirement for SB participation is only applicable at the task order level when SB participation applies. | |
| Is testing to support development of CBRNE Test & Evaluation Infrastructure within the scope of this RFP? | Yes, it is included in scope of this requirement. | |
| Will the Government consider excluding the Summary Section from page count? | Answered. See responses to questions 6 and 18. | |
| The instructions state “The cover letters, proposal introductions, title page, Table of Contents, List of Tables/Figures, resumes, commitment letters and the cross reference matrices and representation and certifications are not included in page count limitations.” Will the Government allow offerors to provide a Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations to be excluded from page count as well? | Answered. See response to question 44. | |
| The only mention of a commitment letter is in this section that describes what is excluded from the page count limits. Was this an oversight? Should the reference to a commitment letter be removed? | Commitment letters can be provided as supplemental documentation, IAW RFP Section L(c)(2). Commitment letters may be included as an appendix to Volume II. | |
| If an offeror does not have a current PRP certification, the instructions state that “the Offeror shall submit a strategic plan (including discussion of the PRP compliance requirements, risk mitigation, and milestone schedule) for obtaining a formal PRP certification for itself within 180 calendar days of task order award. The Offeror shall also include in its strategic plan the steps it will take to maintain its PRP certification.” Addressing these requirements by offerors without a PRP certification will require a longer narrative than the response provided by an offeror with the certification. With this in mind, will the Government please allow the PRP response within the Management Approach to be excluded from the 10 page limit for this requirement? | PRP information can be submitted as an appendix to Volume II. Any information contained within this appendix that can be construed as additional management factor proposal information will not be considered. | |
| Can the Government please confirm if the requested cover letter is to be a stand alone document or included in one or all of the proposal volumes? | Answered. See response to question 17. | |
| "The Government may permit telecommuting, pursuant to FAR 7.108, by Contractor employees when determined to be in the best interest of the Government in meeting work requirements. The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal." |
| Given that an established Telecommuting Program Plan is required as part of the proposal, please indicate which volume it should be included in and if it will count against volume page count. | Answered. See response to question 19. |
| "The Offeror can customize formatting; however, basic layout should be |
reflective of the example provided. The Offeror may provide additional information for any references cited regarding any awards received for projects described."
| The example for Past Performance does not appear to have been included in the final RFP as was indicated in the draft RFP Q&As. Would the Government please provide the referenced example to follow for Past Performance? | Answered. See response to question 9. |
| Section L states, "The Offeror shall provide resumes [plural] and any |
supplemental documentation to substantiate the following, at a minimum..." and then "At the basic IDIQ level, offerors shall propose a program manager as the only key position. A resume [singular] addressing the following shall meet the following education, clearance, and experience required in the table shall be provided in Volume V of the proposal levels."
Section M contains, "(2) All key/essential personnel resumes submitted will be evaluated to determine whether they demonstrate qualifications and experience to meet all the minimum requirements as described in section L."
| Will the Government confirm if it intends to evaluate all resumes submitted for key/essential personnel as stated in Section M or will it only evaluate the resume submitted for the Program Manager as stated in Section L? | The Program Manager is the only designated Key Personnel at the base IDIQ level. The Government will only evaluate the resume for the Program Manager as stated in section L. | |
| The RFP states, "The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five volumes. The Volumes are; Volume I factor I – Technical, Volume II- factor 2 – Management Approach, Volume III – factor 3, Past Performance, Volume IV –Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) and Volume V- General." | ||
| Please confirm whether small business offerors, who are excluded from the Volume IV requirement, may confirm within their cover letter the volume is not applicable to the Offeror's proposal in lieu of submitting a separate Volume IV file? | In lieu of submitting a separate Volume IV file, Small Business offerors, who are excluded from the Volume IV requirement, may confirm within their cover letter the volume is not applicable. | |
| The RFP requires the offeror to "provide resumes and any supplemental documentation to substantiate the following, at a minimum." Please clarify what is required by supplemental documentation? Does this refer to a letter of intent for the key personnel? | Yes, a letter of intent, (referred to as a commitment letter in the RFP), is considered supplemental documentation. Section L(2)(c)(2) has been updated to reflect this. | |
| The RFP states, "The cover letters, proposal introductions, title page, Table of Contents, List of Tables/Figures, resumes, commitment letters and the cross-reference matrices are not included in the page count limitations" and "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." Is the Summary Section the same as the Proposal Introduction and therefore excluded from page count? If these are two different sections, please confirm the Summary Sections are also excluded from page count? | Answered. See responses to questions 6 and 18. | |
| RFP states: The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal. | ||
| QUESTION: Does the Government intend for offerors to include this response as part of the proposal response or within an Appendix section that is not counted towards the page limit? If part of the proposal response, should this be included in Volume II Management Approach? | Answered. See response to question 19. | |
| RFP states: The Offeror shall submit evidence of current Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certification. If the Offeror does not have current PRP certification, the Offeror shall submit a strategic plan (including discussion of the PRP compliance requirements, risk mitigation, and milestone schedule) for obtaining a formal PRP certification for itself within 180 calendar days of task order award. The Offeror shall also include in its strategic plan the steps it will take to maintain its PRP certification. The prime Offeror must be the holder of the PRP certification; it cannot be held by a subcontractor. | ||
| QUESTION: Please clarify that the PRP certification cannot be held by a company but only by individuals that require a PRP certification to perform on a PRP required contract. | Language has been updated in the RFP to clarify this requirement. | |
| RFP requires Offerors to provide documentation demonstrating compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9. Documentation such as Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) will consume a significant number of pages. | ||
| QUESTION: Given the page limit for Volume III, may such documentation be placed in an appendix and excluded from page count limits? | The ISRs shall not be included in the page count and can be included as appendices to Volume III. Any information contained within this appendix that can be construed as additional past performance proposal information will not be considered. Section L(2)(d) updated to reflect this. | |
| RFP requires Offerors to provide any Quality Deficiency Reports (QDRs) submitted by DCMA within the past 5 years. Submission of QDRs could consume a significant number of pages. | ||
| QUESTION: Given the page limit for Volume III, may QDRs be placed in an appendix and excluded from page count limits? | The QDRs shall not be included in the page count and can be included as appendices to Volume III. Any information contained within this appendix that can be construed as additional past performance proposal information will not be considered. Section L(2)(d) updated to reflect this. | |
| RFP requires Offerors to calculate goals as a percentage of total contract dollars in addition to the goals established as a percentage of total subcontract dollars. | ||
| QUESTION: Due to the IDIQ nature of this contract and that the TCV is unknown, will the Government consider revising Section L 3. (e) to require percentages only versus dollar amounts? | For the purposes of developing goals for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, offerors should use the total contract value of $869,061,571 identified in the RFP, page 2, executive summary, paragraph A.4. | |
| The Government made several updates to the RFP that resulted in multiple messages and documents posted with minor changes. However, the Government did not highlight or state what the changes were to the documents. | ||
| Question: Will the Government either highlight changes or provide a summary of changes upfront on the documents? | All changes are noted in the Q&A document that will be posted with the updated RFP. | |
| The Contractor shall have an established Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal.” |
Section L does not require Offerors to provide a Telecommuting Program Plan and this plan is more appropriate at the Task Order level. Depending on the TO PWS, this plan may not be needed.
Question: Will the Government change the wording to be similar to “At the Task Order level, the Contractor may be required to provide a Telecommuting Program Plan as part of their proposal.”?
| Answered. See response to question 19. |
| Contractor personnel performing work under this contract must have a minimum of a SECRET security clearance prior to commencement of work under this contract and must maintain the level of security required for the life of the contract or until the employee is no longer working in support of this contract.” |
In the past, not everyone was required to have a clearance to work on CBC contracts e.g., some approved foreign nationals were allowed to work at CBC and some personnel working off the customer site have not needed security clearances such as university researchers.
Question: Will the Government change the wording in the PWS to allow industry to use uncleared personnel for work that does not involve classified information? For example, the provided DD Form 254 states in Block 13 (11a): “Contract employees accessing classified information shall be US citizens and have a valid security clearance in place.” The Government has modified the PWS to reflect that personnel that are not working on classified materials, or in a classified environment, and who are not on a government facility do not require a clearance.
“Foreign nationals/immigrant aliens cannot be granted unescorted access to the work-site, and shall not be scheduled to perform work under this contract.”
In past contracts, foreign nationals have been authorized to work on CBC contracts, if approved by CBC Security and the KO.
Question: Will the Government change the wording in the PWS to allow CBC approved contractors as shown in the provided DD Form 254? Block 13 [11m(1)] states: “The contractor shall not use foreign nationals on this contract unless approved by the Procuring Contracting Officer with DEVCOM- Chemical Biological Center Security Office concurrence.”
| Section 7.4.18 of the PWS has been updated to reflect that the contractor shall not use foreign nationals on this contract unless approved by the Procuring Contracting Officer. |
| This paragraph states, “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 this requirement apply to Volume V – General?
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .