Industry Questions and Answers - solicitation W9124J-20-R-0024.pdf

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

SOLICITATION W9124J-20-R-0024, ASIP & ASIP-S SUPPORT SERVICES

1. ASIP experience and army installation management experience is very restrictive for key personnel.

We request that the Government kindly consider DOD experience.

Response: The government prefers Army experience, but DoD experience is acceptable. PWS has been revised; see highlighted changes.

2. Please confirm whether the contract references & CPARS past performances can be provided from a teaming partner or subcontractor?

Response: Paragraph 4.3.8 is added to FAR 52.212-1 addendum:

When selecting recent and relevant contracts to be considered for past performance, offerors may choose to use contracts which it has performed (ether as a Prime or a Sub), or it may choose to use references of its teaming partners (subcontractors) which will be performing a significant portion of the work required. Significant is defined as at least 35% of the proposed dollar value. Offerors shall not use a past performance reference for a subcontractor/teaming partner which is anticipated to perform less than 35% of the total contract value.

3. The RFP says "4.3.1 The Government intends to evaluate Past Performance by reviewing reports submitted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database. The offeror shall provide the Government with up to three (3) contract references that included a CPARS report." By "Offeror" do you mean the prime contractor and subcontractors or only the prime contractor? As a prime, can we submit our subcontractor team member's past performance? If so, how many of our subcontractor team member's past performances can we submit?

Response: See answer to question three. Offerors may utilize past performance references for its subcontractor/teaming partners, provided the subcontractor/teaming partner is performing at least 35% of the total contract value. Offerors are afforded discretion on the composition of its past performance volume, provided it meets this 35% criterion.

4. ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, 2.9 page

18 or 86: Could the Government clarify where Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letters of Intent (LOI) that define the evidence Offerors should submit in defining team members or teaming partners?

Response: In accordance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, para 2.9, offerors shall provide a Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) if it chooses to perform this effort using a team consisting of itself and subcontractors, or, if a Joint Venture will be utilized, the JV documentation should be provided. Offerors may provide the formal Teaming Arrangement documentation which shows evidence of the Teaming Arrangement, or a Letter of Intent from a subcontractor. Teaming

Arrangement documentation or Letter of Intent shall not be counted towards the overall page limit for the respective volume.

5. ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, 3.2.2 page 18 or 86. Given the details necessary required tin responding to the 52.212.1 requirements for Volume II, along with its evaluation emphasis, would the Government consider increasing the page count for Volume II to 30 pages?

Response: The Government will not consider increasing the page limit for Volume II. However, Teaming Arrangement documentation or Letter of Intent shall not be counted towards the overall page limit for the respective volume.

6. ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, 3.2.9, page 19 or 86: As written resumes of the key personnel are not excluded of the page limits? Would the Government consider allowing resumes to be outside of the 20 page limitation for Volume II?

Response: Resumes will not be counted toward the page limitation. However, individual resumes should not exceed 3 pages in length.

7. ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, 4.2.3, Factor 1: Technical Approach, Subfactor 2: Data Integration and Extraction, page 21 of 86: Subfactor 2 refers to "existing ASIP web service architecture with its feeder systems" but such an existing web service architecture is not described in Section 5. Can we assume that this reference to web services pertains to the task specified in Section 5.5 to "review manual data integration processes to identify opportunities to automate"?

Response: Yes.