All final Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 71 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TOTAL ENGINEERING and INTEGRATION SERVICES-TEIS IV Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9128Z-20-R-0001
About this file
This solicitation is for information systems engineering and information technology support services. The contract will provide services to the United States Army Information Systems Engineering Command, including engineering activities to support all aspects of information and communication systems for the full life cycle of projects. Support is required worldwide, including at secure facilities involving high-level clearances and challenging environments with little infrastructure. The services include planning, design, development, engineering, implementation, procurement, logistics, evaluation, test, sustainment, and ancillary functions. The Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground is the contracting agency. The response due date is December 30, 2019.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
TOTAL ENGINEERING and INTEGRATION SERVICES-TEIS IV has more files on GovTribe.
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 # | Document | Section/Page | Language in Question | Question | Government Response | Government Action |
| 1 | ATT062 Past Performance Reference Information Summary (Part B) | Entire Document | Document Format | Will the Government Please provide this document in word format to be in compliance with the submission instructions in Table L-1? | The Government will provide the word format of ATT0062. | word format to be provided with RFP Amendment 1. |
| 2 | ATT061 Past Performance Reference List (Part A) | Entire Document | Document Format | Will the Government Please provide this document in word format to be in compliance with the submission instructions in Table L-1? | The Government will provide the word format of ATT0061. | word format to be provided with RFP Amendment 1. |
| 3 | RFP | Section M-4, item 3. Cost Factor, Pg. 141 | The RFP states “The total sum will be multiplied by a cost multiplication factor of 1.4469 to derive the total evaluated value.” | Will the Government please clarify what cost elements are included in the 44.69 multiplication factor? | The 1.4469 multiplication factor includes materials, travel and ODCs. | No changes to RFP required |
| 4 | RFP | Section L-20, item 4 Cost Factor, item B(iv), Pg. 132 | The direct labor rates for the Prime Offeror and each Teaming Partner will be incorporated into the resultant basic contract as ceilings for the ordering period. | As the solicitation states that no Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) elements shall be proposed in response to this RFP, will the Government confirm that the ceiling direct labor rates apply to CPFF task orders only? | RFP Section L-20 Part 4 Cost Factor item b(iv) has been revised to state "These ceiling rates will apply to both CPFF and FFP task orders." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 |
| 5 | RFP | Section H-10, item 2 General, item D, Pg.26 | The RFP states, "The Contractor shall submit receipts over $75.00 for all travel and per diem expenses with their invoice." | In consideration for increasing execution efficiency and decreasing contract labor hours spent on this activity, if a contractor has a DCMA approved accounting system can the receipt requirement be removed or modified such that receipts shall be made available for specific transactions only upon request of the government? | No the receipt requirement will not be removed or modified. | No changes to RFP required |
| 6 | RFP | Section L-18, pg. 122 | In order to be considered for selection, the Offeror must submit a complete response to this solicitation using the sequence and format instructions provided in L-7. | L-7 is listed in this solicitation as "52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES FEB/1993". Is L-7 an error, and if so, what is the correct citation? | The solicitation was corrected to read (in response to the Draft RFP) "instructions provided in L-19" | No changes to RFP required |
| 7 | RFP | Section L-20, item 4 Cost Factor, item E,. Pg. 133 | Contractors should identify labor categories subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA). The Cochise County, AZ and the Fairfax, VA wage determinations are provided as a reference in Section J, Attachment ATT068 and ATT069. Offerors are responsible for ensuring compliance with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) wage determinations for the applicable categories for each proposed locality. Offerors shall ensure that the base rates and fringe benefits proposed for personnel subject to the SCA meet or exceed the corresponding minimum wages established by the DOL. | Wage Determination for Fairfax County, VA and Cochise County, AZ are provided with the solicitation to use for CONUS-High and CONUS rates, however, the exact places of performance for the task orders are unknown. Should all offerors use the Fairfax and Cochise County wage determinations for proposal purposes, with the understanding that locations may change for task order performance? | RFP Section L-20 Part 4 Cost Factor item E states "In the Labor Rate spreadsheet file, Offerors shall use the Cochise County, AZ for CONUS pricing and Fairfax, VA for High CONUS pricing." | No changes to RFP required |
| 8 | RFP | Section L-20 item 4 Cost Factor, item B(i),pg. 132 and Section L-20 item 4 Cost Factor, item B(ix) | (i) Offerors shall complete the Government-provided TEIS Labor Rate Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file (TEIS Labor Rates.xlsx) Section J, Attachment ATT064, AND (ix)...material, travel, and other direct costs (ODCs) shall not be included as part of the proposal response. | The RFP requires that OCONUS rates be provided but also direct that ODCs should not be included as part of the proposal. If an Offeror's Disclosure Statement requires that OCONUS uplifts be proposed as ODCs, how should the Offeror propose the OCONUS rates? | ATT0064 instructions have been revised to add "OCONUS rates are to be proposed unloaded." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 |
| 9 | ATT0064 CONUS High CONUS OCONUS Labor Rates | Prime and Teaming Partner Tabs | Column F of these tabs is named "Proposed Direct Labor Rates" is this meant to be Fully Burdened Labor Rates, or the Direct Labor rate only with no burdens? | This should be the Offeror's Direct Labor rates with out burdens. Burdens are added on the tab titled "Total Proposal" | No changes to RFP required | |
| 10 | General | Subcontractors | Can subcontractors be proposed as T&M contract types? This would include subcontractors that do not have approved accounting systems that cannot bid CPFF. If so, should the same RFP pricing template be used and just modified as needed? | Yes, subcontractors can be proposed as T&M contract types. Yes, the same RFP pricing templates should be used and modified as needed. Per ATT0064 Offerors must describe all changes to the Government provided pricing model. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 11 | ATT0051 Sample Task-Satellite Communications | Multiple References | The RFP states, "Provision of subfloor cable passage and air flow." | Will the Government please verify that the intent of this statement as a raised floor penetration for cables and under floor cooling? | The statement is provided in the sample task to provide the Offeror some detail as to the environment in which the modernization will take place. The Offeror shall provide their technical approach from the information and details provided. |
| There is no requirement to install the subfloor or the under floor cooling system. | No changes to RFP required. | |||
| 12 | ATT0051 Sample Task-Satellite Communications | Section 3.1.1.6, Pg. 6 and Section 3.2.5, Pg. 11 | 3.1.1.6 Installation Schedule (Provide a brief example of an installation schedule plan) | |
| 3.2.5 Installation Schedule (Provide an example of the installation schedule for this sample task to demonstrate your proficiency) | 3.1.1.6 calls for an "installation schedule plan" where 3.2.5 calls for an "example of the installation schedule…" | |||
| Will the government please clarify the difference between these two items or indicate whether the requirements in 3.2.5 will meet the requirements of 3.1.1.6 | The installation plans are two different requirements. |
3.1.1.6 is the installation plan for the SATCOM related items.
| 3.2.5 is the installation schedule for the data core items. | No changes to RFP required. | ||||||
| 13 | RFP | Section L-19, Table L-1 pg. 124 | The RFP States, "Sample Task 2 Approach (includes the quality control and risk mitigation plans specific to this sample task). 25 pages" | This sample task includes multiple technical requirements which requires detailed approaches specific for each system and installation task. Will the Government please increase the page limitation from 25 pages to 35 pages for this sample task to ensure offerors can provide sufficient detail to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the requirements in accordance with Section M? | The offeror is expected to provide adequate details in the technical approach, quality control, and risk mitigation for each sample task within the page limitations found in Section L table L1. | No changes to RFP required. | |
| 14 | ATT0051 Sample Task-Satellite Communications | Section 1.2 pg. 2 and Section 3.2 pg.10 | The RFP states, "a new core backbone network will be designed to distribute data, voice and video among users throughout Germany. This network will consist of five nodes within Germany with no more than 30 miles between each subsequent node. At least one node will be within 30 miles of the new SETS facility." | Is there an existing fiber ring that the nodes would connect to, or would we be designing the physical transport layer between the nodes? If the fiber ring exists, what kind of equipment would our Nodes be terminating to? (e.g. ODXC, PSAX, plain fiber distribution panels) | For this factious sample task, the new core backbone network is not existing and is being engineered and installed through a different effort. |
| There is no requirement to design the new data core. The requirement is to connect to this new data core backbone network that is still in development. | No changes to RFP required. | |||||
| 15 | ATT0051 Sample Task-Satellite Communications | Section 3.2.2 , pg.10 | The RFP states, "The SDP will need to address interconnectivity requirements at each site in the core backbone network, analysis of alternatives, network security, network performance, Quality of Service (QoS), Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) support, and other aspects related to the implementation of a secure network to distribute data, voice, and video within Germany. " | Is the contractor being asked to design the network to include distribution of services (data, video, voice) to the users at each of the five sites, or just to design the backbone network for transport of those services? | For this factious sample task, the new core backbone network is being engineered and installed through a different effort. |
| There is no requirement to design the new data core. The requirement is to connect to and transport data with considerations listed in section 3.2.2 of the sample task. | No changes to RFP required. | ||||||
| 16 | ATT065_Small_Business_Participation_Commitment_Document_(SBPCD) | Pg. 1 | CDRL A003, Small Business Participation, reporting applies | CDRL A003, as provided, addresses In-Progress Reviews. Can you confirm small business participation requirements or provide the applicable CDRL? | ATT013 CDRL A003 in the Content item b addresses the small business participation requirements. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 17 | RFP | A-1, 4 / p. 2 | "The resulting TEIS IV multiple-award (MA) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts will have a five (5) year base ordering period and a five (5) year option ordering period under which the selected sources will compete for Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract types." | Will the Government provide dates for bidders to use in their pricing? Currently there is no defined period of performance in the solicitation or SOW. | Per ATT0064 "The Government fiscal year noted in the 'FY' columns is defined as 1 October through 30 September." The ordering period will be defined at the time of contract award. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 18 | RFP | L-16, Item 1 / p. 120 | Each Offeror shall submit only one proposal, with cover letter, which addresses all Government requirements outlined in the solicitation | Is the cover letter required in L-16 the same as the transmittal letter required in L-20 (item 1, A / p. 125)? Should the cover letter be submitted as a separate file or as part of Volume 1 General (V1 - General.docx)? | RFP Section L-16 has been revised to remove "with cover letter" to remove the confusion. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 19 | RFP | L-20, Item 1, A / p. 125 | 1. VOLUME 1 GENERAL. A. A letter formally transmitting the proposal shall include the following: | It is unclear where the "General" file begins and ends. With reference to Table L-1 (p. 123), we assume that the General file consists of the transmittal letter and that the transmittal letter includes items A-G and that items H and following should be mostly addressed in separate files. Since Table L-1 requires a separate files for Adequate Business Systems (item H), Solicitation (item J), Financial Responsibility (item L), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (item M), Joint Venture (JV)/Teaming Arrangement (item N), and Quality Control Plan (item O), we assume that items H, J, L, M, N, and O should be addressed in those separate files rather than in the transmittal letter. Are those assumptions correct? | RFP Section L-20 Table L-1 have been revised to identify which parts of RFP Section L-20 Part 1 General are to be include in the Proposal File named V1 - General.docx. They are Section L-20 Part 1 General items A through G, item I, and item K. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 20 | RFP | L-20, Item 1, I & K / p. 126-127 | "I. Disclosure of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest…" and "K. DD 254…" | Since Table L-1 (p. 123) does not specify separate proposal files for either item I or K, can items I and K be addressed in the General file? | See answer to question 19. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 21 | RFP | L-20, I / p. 126 | I. Disclosure of Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest | Will the Government please confirm if offerors are to certify their OCI disclosure? |
| Will the Government please confirm the OCI disclosure should be part of the Proposal Transmittal Letter? | RFP Section L-20 Part 1 General item I has been revised to state "The Offeror and its major subcontractors shall disclose and certify complete information of any work performed by it that is in any way associated with a contemplated acquisition or which could result in a potential organizational conflict of interest." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |||||
| 22 | RFP | L-20, K / p. 127 | K. DD 254 | Will the Government please confirm the DD 254 information should be part of the Proposal Transmittal Letter? | See answer to question 19. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 23 | RFP | L-19, TABLE L1: / p. 124 |
L-20, 4., A.(i.) / p.131 Volume 4 COST/PRICE FACTOR, "PriceMeth.docx (part in PDF see section L-20 Item 4.B)"
| "In support of the proposed Direct Labor Rates, Offeror shall provide documentation of the most recent Direct Labor Rates, to include at least one of the following (a, b or c) in pdf:" | Will the Government confirm the reference in Table L-1 should point to "PriceMeth.docx (part in PDF see section L-20 Item 4.A)" instead of B? | RFP Section L-19 Table L1 Volume 4 Cost/Price Factor Pricing Methodology proposal file name has bee revised to read "PriceMeth.docx (part in PDF see section L-20 Item 4.A)" | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||||
| 24 | RFP | L-20, 4., G. / p. 133 | “ If Teaming Partner data required under this Volume IV - Cost is considered proprietary, it may be sent directly to the Government. The Prime is responsible for ensuring that all Teaming Partner information submitted directly to the Government is received in accordance with the instruction at RFP Section L.16. Teaming Partners will submit their own Volume IV.” | For clarification on sealed package submission of the TEIS Labor Rates file, assume subcontractors will be completing the following tabs: "Total Proposed" as if they were prime with their percentages allocated by their prime; "Prime" with their proposed percentage allocation allocated by their prime; and "Category Map" where subcontractors will detail their internal mapping. Is this a correct assumption or would the Government wish to provide other guidance. | Teaming Partners has been replaced with Major Subcontractor. Major Subcontractors are to complete All part of RFP Section L-20 Part 4. For Att0064 Major Subcontractors are to complete the Prime tab and the Total Proposed tab with their percentages allocated by their prime; and the Category Map tab to detail their internal mapping, if they are sending their labor rates directly to the Government. Primes are to compete all the tabs. ATT 0064 Information tab has been revised to include this clarification. RFP Section L-20 Part 4 Cost Factor item G has been revised to include this clarification. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 25 | RFP | L-20, 4., G. / p. 133 | “ If Teaming Partner data required under this Volume IV - Cost is considered proprietary, it may be sent directly to the Government. The Prime is responsible for ensuring that all Teaming Partner information submitted directly to the Government is received in accordance with the instruction at RFP Section L.16. Teaming Partners will submit their own Volume IV.” | If the Prime has T&M type subcontract agreements, will the Government waive the requirement for subcontractors to submit their own Volume IV cost data directly to the Government? If no, does the Government expect the same level of detail from prime and subs in regard to pricing methodology? This is a very high bar for a small business subcontractor without an approved accounting system and lacking the resources to assemble such a complex document. | No, the Government will not waive the requirement in RFP Section L-20, Par 4 Cost Factor item G. For level of detail see the answer to question 24. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 26 | RFP | L-20, 4., B. (viii) / p. 132 | "Fee will not be allowed on Travel or ODCs costs" | Will the Government allow fee on Material Costs? | Yes the Government will allow fee on Material Costs. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 27 | RFP | L-20, 1., G. / p. 126 | "Direct Billing Authorization. Contractors approved by DCAA for direct billing authorization shall provide, as part of their proposals, a copy of their DCAA direct billing authorization memorandum. This memorandum is required to be signed by the cognizant DCAA office manager and state that the contractor has adequate internal controls over its billing system and submits incurred cost proposals and final vouchers per FAR 52.216-7; therefore, provisional DCAA approval of interim vouchers is not needed." | There has been no Direct Billing Authorization required for a number of years. All DoD vouchers are submitted via WAWF and DCAA does a sample of the daily vouchers submitted. If there are issues, a voucher may be pulled back, but there is no authorization required to submit vouchers for payment. Can the Government confirm that no memorandum is required? | After review of information on the DCAA website about direct billing the RFP Section L-20 Part 1 has been updated to remove item G. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 28 | ATT0065 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) | 1. / p. 1 | "{ } Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)" |
and
| "{ } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)" | Both socioeconomic categories utilize the same acronym. Suggest changing "{ } Veteran Owned Small Business to (VOSB)" which will then align with the acronyms in Section "2. Small Business Participants*", column heading "Business Category(ies)" | ATT0065 have been revised to correct the typo Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB). | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||||
| 29 | RFP | L-19 (2), Pagination, Page 122 | Pagination - Page numbers, headers, and footers may be outside the page margins, and are not bound by font, color and point size requirement. | There is no color requirement defined in section L, could you define that requirement? | RFP Section L-19 Part 3 Page Limit has been revised to include Black is the required type color. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 30 | RFP | L-16 (1), Page 120 |
AND
| L-20, (3, c), Past Performance Questionnaire, Page 130 | Past Performance Questionnaire - (L-16) Offerors must ensure that Past Performance references return the Past Performance Questionnaire by the due date and time for proposal submission. | ||||||
| (L-20) It is also the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the references return the questionnaire directly to the contracting office ("mailto:usarmy.huachuca.cecom.mbx.teis-iv-usaisec@mail.mil | " ) within 30 calendar days of release of the RFP. | Can you confirm if the Past Performance Questionnaire submission must be completed by references by the due date of the Proposal or within 30 calendar days of RFP release? | RFP Section l-20 Part 3 Past Performance Factor item C has been revised to state "It is also the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the references return the questionnaire directly to the contracting office ("mailto:usarmy.huachuca.cecom.mbx.teis-iv-usaisec@mail.mil by the due date and time for proposal submission. " | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |||
| 31 | RFP | L-19 (5), Page 125 | * Note: Those files marked with an asterisk require the Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations, checklist(s) and Acronym List. These pages do not apply to the page limitations. | What is the difference between an Acronym List and a Glossary of Abbreviations? Can we take these to mean the same thing? | RFP Section L-19 Table L1 * Note has been revised to state "Those files marked with an asterisk can include the following pages to be within the proposal volume: Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations, and checklist(s). These pages do not apply to the page limitations."" to provide clarification. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 32 | RFP | L-19 (3), Page 123 | Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. | Does the definition of a paragraph include the header/footer, bullets, figure titles, tables and illustrations? | No, header/footer are defined in RFP Section L-19 Part 2 Pagination which states "Page numbers, headers, and footers may be outside the page margins, and are not bound by the font, color and point size requirement." No tables and illustrations are defined in RFP Section L-19 Part 3 which states "For tables and illustrations, Offerors may use a Times New Roman or Arial font size not less than 10-point and may be landscape." | No changes to RFP required | |
| 33 | RFP | L-17 (2), Page 122 | The offeror must provide a group e-mail address for Government Communications | Is it acceptable to use our company name in the title of the email distribution list required in our cover letter for Government communications? | Yes it is acceptable to use a company name in the title of the group e-mail address required in RFP Section l-12 Part 2. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 34 | RFP | L-20 (1) Volume 1 General, (J) Page 127 | J. Solicitation Documents. Each Offeror shall complete all fill-ins and signature blocks for the RFP sections indicated below. |
An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and SF30. PDF versions of the signed documents shall be submitted as
| part of the electronic and CD/DVD submissions. | Is a CD/DVD Submission required? | RFP Section L-20 Part 1 item j have been revised to remove the CD/DVD requirement. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||||
| 35 | RFP | L-20 (3) (B), Page 130 | The required format for these descriptions is located in Section J, ATT062 Past Performance Information Summary (PPIS) (Part B). | Must this form be used exactly as it is presented or will the Government accept slight modifications (combine information on one line to save space) to the form? | ATT062 states "The Offeror may remove all Italic sections of this document to save space." No other changes to the format maybe made. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 36 | RFP | Table L-1: Proposal Page Limitations, Volume 5, Page 124 AND L-20 (5) Small Business Participation Factor, Page 134 | Small Business Participation Required for all Offerors) 15 Pgs., V5 SBP.docx | It is unclear as to the requirements for the V5 SBP 15 page required file as most references in this Section reference the completion of Attachment AAT065. Can the Government clarify what is required for this Volume? | RFP Section L-20 Part 5 states "All Offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) shall provide the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) per Section J, Attachment 0065, along with substantiating documentation to demonstrate how they will meet small business participation requirements." | No changes to RFP required | |
| 37 | RFP | L-19 (4), Page Limit Exceptions, Page 123 | The following documents are excluded from the page limitation requirements as described in the table below and, further, do not require page numbering: cover page, table of contents, compliance matrices, indices, list of tables, glossary of abbreviations, list of acronyms, staffing worksheets, Past Performance List of References, and the Cost volume and worksheets. | Since there are several individual files within each Volume, should a cover page be placed on each file within each volume? | RFP Section L-19 Part 4 has been revised to remove the cover page. Do not provide cover pages. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 38 | PWS and ATT0061 Past Performance Reference List (PART A) | PWS 3.8 Page 23 / ATT0061 | 3.8 Software | Section 3.8 of the PWS lists Software, but Software is not included in the table on ATT0061. Can the Government confirm that Software is missing from the "X" mark table provided in ATT0061? | No, the Software was intentionally omitted. Software development is not a significant effort in this solicitation. Software development/coding is limited to that which is intrinsic to engineering, integration, and test evaluation efforts or for operational use. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 39 | RFP | L-19, Table L1, Volume 2, Project Schedule(s), Page 123 and L19, (3) Page Limit, Page 123 | Sample Task 1, 2, and 3 Project Schedules | Since Project Schedules are completed in Microsoft Project, ending with a "mpp" file name, are they subject to header, footer, page number requirements? | RFP Section L-19 Part 4 has been revised to add mpp files from the page limit exceptions. There are no footer, header, or page number requirements for Microsoft Project files (.mpp). | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 40 | RFP | L-20, (3) (B) Past Performance Information Summary, Page 130 | For contracts with multiple delivery/task orders, each delivery/task order submitted will count as one of the referenced contracts. |
AND
Relevant in magnitude is defined as combined work performance that demonstrates the Offeror's (Prime, Sub-contractor or Business Relationship (e.g., Joint Venture, Sub-contractor, Mentor-Portege, etc.)) has managed 100 or more employees in combined performance OR performance, when combined, is equal to $30 Million or more in contract value. Can the Government confirm that we may use individual Task Orders as individual referenced contracts as long as they meet the requirement of managing 100 employees OR equal to $30 Million?
Can the Government confirm if individual task orders do not meet the requirement of 100 employees or value of $30 Million or more, we can use the contract at the IDIQ level and combine the individual task orders to meet the employee or value requirement?
| RFP Section L-20 Part 3 Past Performance Factor item B has been revised to state "For contracts with multiple delivery/task orders, each delivery/task order submitted will count as one of the referenced contracts OR the IDIQ level contract can be used combining all the task order to meet the employee and value requirement." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||
| 41 | RFP | L-16 (1) Proposal Submission, (B), page 121 | |
| Send an e-mail to "mailto:usarmy.huachuca.cecom.mbx.teis-iv-usaisec@mail.mil " indicating that your proposal is ready for upload. | Are subcontractors required to follow the same submission process as the Prime to submit a sealed pricing package? | Yes subcontracts are required to follow the same submission process as the Prime to submit their pricing volume. | No changes to RFP required |
| 42 | RFP | L-20, (3) Volume 3 Past Performance, Page 130 | For contracts with multiple delivery/task orders, each delivery/task order submitted will count as one of the referenced contracts. Data concerning the Prime Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor/team member/joint venture, in alphabetical |
order.
(i) Referenced contracts should be provided that are relevant in type and magnitude. The past performance factor considers each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services at least somewhat relevant to the solicitation and PWS requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, Relevancy (including context of data), and Quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source information).
(ii) Recency: The Offeror's past performance will be determined to be recent if the data used in conducting performance risk assessments does not extend past three (3) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation.
(iii) Relevancy: Once the Recency of a contract action has been established, the Offeror's past performance will be assessed to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the TEIS IV Services requirement being acquired through this solicitation.
Relevant in type is defined as combined work performance similar to that described in the PWS with respect to service/support, complexity, management of large numbers of employees, and degree of subcontract/teaming.
Relevant in magnitude is defined as combined work performance that demonstrates the Offeror's (Prime, Sub-contractor or Business Relationship (e.g., Joint Venture, Sub-contractor, Mentor-protégé, etc.)) has managed 100 or more employees in combined performance OR performance, when combined, is equal to $30 Million or more in contract value.
These criteria do not have to be demonstrated in each contract; however, the Offeror should point out the relevance of each contract as it relates to relevance in type, relevance in magnitude, or both so that the Government can clearly determine that the team's aggregate past performance demonstrates the minimum requirements. Will the Government clarify whether a IDIQ MATOC may be used as past performance, and then within that MATOC - past performance from individual task orders may be used? If so if the contractors submits past performance from two task orders under one IDIQ MATOC does that count as 1 or 2 past performances?
Will the Government clarify whether past performance from two task orders may be combined from one IDIQ MATOC to meet the threshold for relevancy when compared to size ($30m and 100 employees)? Would that past performance then count as 1 or 2 past performances?
| Can the Government clarify if the Relevancy requirement is $30M AND 100 employees or $30M OR 100 employees. | See the answer to question 40. RFP Section L-20 Part 3 Past Performance Factor item b(iii) states "Relevant in magnitude is defined as combined work performance that demonstrates the Offeror's (Prime, Sub-contractor or Business Relationship (e.g., Joint Venture, Sub-contractor, Mentor-protégé, etc.)) has managed 100 or more employees in combined performance OR performance, when combined, is equal to $30 Million or more in contract value." | No changes to RFP required | |||
| 43 | RFP | L-20, (3) Volume 3 Past Performance, (C) Page 130 | C. Past Performance Questionnaire. The Offeror shall ensure that a Past Performance Questionnaire, as set forth in Section J, Attachment 0063, is completed for each referenced contract. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to provide its references with a copy of the questionnaire. It is also the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the references return the questionnaire directly to the contracting office ("mailto:usarmy.huachuca.cecom.mbx.teis-iv-usaisec@mail.mil") within 30 calendar days of release of the RFP. An electronic copy of the questionnaire may be downloaded from the FBO | ||
| website. | Are Major Subcontractors required to submit PPQs to their contract references? PPQs only refer to "offeror's" references. | RFP Section L-20 part 3 Past Performance item C has been revised to read "The Prime Offeror and major subcontractor/team member/joint venture shall ensure that a Past Performance Questionnaire, as set forth in Section J, Attachment 0063, is completed for each referenced contract. It is the sole responsibility of the Prime Offeror and major subcontractor/team member/joint venture to provide its references with a copy of the questionnaire. It is also the Prime Offeror’s and major subcontractor/team member/joint venture's responsibility to ensure the references return the questionnaire directly to the contracting office ("mailto:usarmy.huachuca.cecom.mbx.teis-iv-usaisec@mail.mil”) by the due date and time for proposal submission. An electronic copy of the questionnaire may be downloaded from the beta.SAM website." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||
| 44 | RFP | L-20, 4 Cost Factor, Page 131 | "Teaming Partner" | This entire section references "Teaming Partners" with no mention of Subcontractors. Is a "Teaming Partner" and a "Subcontractor" the same thing? |
If so, are all Teaming Partners/Subcontractors required to complete the Price Methodology Volume or are Major Subcontractors only required to submit a Price Methodology Volume?
| Are subcontractors performing less than 10% of the work required to complete a Price Methodology Volume? | RFP Section L-20 Part 4 Cost Factor are references to "Teaming Partners have been revised to read Major Subcontractors. Per RFP Section L-20 Table L-1 Notes "Major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor anticipated to perform more than 10 percent of the total contract value." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||
| 45 | RFP | L-19, Table L1, *Note | * Note: Those files marked with an asterisk require the following pages to be within the proposal volume: Table of Contents, Glossary of | |
| Abbreviations, checklist(s) and Acronym List. These pages do not apply to the page limitations. | Can the Government define what is expected as a checklist? If each file is to include some sort of a checklist, can the Government please provide an explanation of what is expected for each checklist? Or is this reference only applicable to volumes that checklists are required like in Volume 1 General, Quality Control checklists? | RFP Section L-19 Table 1 *Note have been revised to state "Those files marked with an asterisk can include the following pages to be within the proposal volume: Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations, and checklist(s). These pages do not apply to the page limitations." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 46 | RFP | L-20, 1 Volume I General, Quality Control Plan, vi Page 128 | Description of the process and contractor personnel that will be utilized to monitor contract activities and identify, | |
| in a timely manner, problem areas and recommend solutions | Is it the Government's intent that we provide the titles for the personnel who will perform these tasks under this IDIQ RFP? Typically, this level of detail is handled at the TO RFP level. | It is up to the Offeror to provide sufficient information to met this requirement of the Quality Control Plan | No changes to RFP required | |
| 47 | RFP and Sample Tasks Quality Control Plans | General, Vol 2 & Technical Factor A Sample Task Sub factor on page 128 and Sample Task Instructions | General Volume O - Quality Control Plan - For your information, the Government intends for the TEIS IV Quality Control Plan and checklist(s) to be used as the basis for task order- specific plans and checklist(s). Contractors may be required to develop task-order-specific quality control plans and checklist(s) as task order deliverables. |
Section L references: In accordance with the instructions provided with each Sample Task, the Offeror shall provide a narrative response describing their technical approach, along with supporting documents as described in each of the Sample Tasks. The Sample task language reads: The Offeror shall provide a narrative response describing the Technical Approach, as described in Section 3 of this sample task. The sample task response shall be accompanied by the documents detailed below.
a) Quality Control Plan and associated task checklist(s) tailored for this sample task;
b) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for this sample task (which shall include the Basis of Estimate (BOE));
c) Project work schedule (using MS Project 2013) for this sample task; and
| d) Risk Mitigation Plan tailored for this sample task. | Between the instructions in Section L for the Quality Control Plan, the Sample Task Sub factors, and the Sample Task specific instructions, there appears to be a disconnect of what the Government's expectations are. Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to outline the specific training requirements, metrics, documentation, and inspections, pertinent to each ST within the 25 page limit per ST or will an overview of the methodologies to determine which program-specific items will be used suffice? As we cannot cross-reference volumes, identifying both specific training requirements, metrics, documentation, and inspections, pertinent to each ST, in addition to the methodologies already addressed in the QCP would require a significant portion of the ST page counts. Will the Government confirm that the QCP, WBS, Work Schedule, and Risk Mitigation are excluded from the page limitations? |
| Should the QCP and Risk Mitigation be included in the Sample Task File (V2 SampleTask1, V2 SampleTask2, V2 SampleTask3)? If so, are the QCP and Risk Mitigation excluded from the Sample Task page limitations? | There is no disconnect in the Government’s expectation. RFP Section L-20 Part 1 General item O is the whole IDIQ contract. |
RFP Section L-19 Table L1 for each sample task has been revised to read "includes the Quality Control approach and Risk Mitigation approach specific to this sample task.”
Per RFP Section L-19 Table L1, the WBS and Project Schedule for each sample task have no page limit.
Per RFP Section L-19 *Note: Those files marked with an asterisk can include the following pages to be within the proposal volume: Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations, and checklist(s). These pages do not apply to the page limitations."
No changes will be made to the page limitations based on these questions.
The offeror is expected to provide adequate details in the technical approach, quality control, and risk mitigation for each sample task within the page limitations found in Section L-19 Table L1.
Updated page one to each of the sample tasks to clarify the expectations of the quality control and risk management approaches.
NOTE: I believe Section L Table L1 should also be updated. Under each sample task replace the word "plan" with the word "approach"
| 48 | ATT0019 TEIS IV - Labor Category Descriptions | part 6.1, Page 11 | 6.1 Project Director | The LCAT Description for Paragraph 6.1 of ATT0019 makes reference to a Program Manager, and the language used implies that the PM referenced is the Contractor PM. However, there is not a LCAT for “Program Manager”. Would the Government consider adding this LCAT, for clarity? | No The Government will not add a Program Manger to the labor categories. ATT0019 have been revised to remove the reference "project manager". | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 |
| 49 | RFP | Section L-9 Format Page 122 - 1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION | Security permissions on ".pdf," ".xlsx," and ".docx" files shall be set to allow the Government to search, select, cut, paste, and print text and graphics. | Does the statement refer to the caption title for the graphic being searchable? If so, the titles would be included in a list of figures? | If proposals contain graphics or images etc that cannot be searched please include reference to them in the table of contents. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 |
| 50 | RFP | L-19 FORMAT Page 123 3. PAGE LIMIT | Fold-outs are limited up to 11" x 17" and are permissible for Volume 2 and 4 only. Portrait format or landscape format with a standard 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial font is required. Fold-outs pages will be counted as one page. | Do illustrations and/or tables on 11” x 17” fold-outs, follow the “standard 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial font is required” statement or follow paragraph 4 in 3. PAGE LIMIT reference, “For tables and illustrations, Offerors may use a Times New Roman or Arial font size not less than 10-point and may be landscape”. | If the Offeror makes an illustration and/or table a fold-out then that illustration and/or table must compile with the fold-out page limitation found in RFP Section L-19 Part 3 Page Limit. | No changes to RFP required |
| 51 | RFP | M-2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Page 137 - 4. Equal Employment (EEO), Compliance Certification | In accordance with FAR 52.222-24, Pre-award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) must issue a certification of the Offeror's EEO compliance with Executive Order 11246, inclusive of any subcontractor/team member/joint venture whose sub-contract is for more than 10 percent of the total contract value. Offerors who fail to provide evidence of the required OFCCP certification shall be preclude from being eligible for contract award. | The OFCCP certification is not called out in Section L for placement. Where would the Government like this put into our submission? | RFP Section L-20 Part 1 General item G have been change to remove direct billing authorization and replace it with OFCCP Certification. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 |
| 52 | RFP | L-19 FORMAT Page 122 - 2. Pagination | Applicable to Volumes 1 through 5. All pages of the proposal shall be numbered using a uniform page numbering system consisting of the date, solicitation number, volume number, and volume title on each page of the proposal (this information may be included in a header/footer). Page numbers, headers, and footers may be outside the page margins, and are not bound by the font, color and point size requirement. | In paragraph 4. Page Limit Exceptions., it states that Excel worksheets and .mmp documents do not require a page number, but does this include not requiring the date, solicitation number, volume number, and volume title on each page of the proposal as stated in paragraph 2. PAGINATION? | Item identified in RFP Section L-19 Part 4 Page Limit exceptions are not except from RFP Section L-19 Part 2 Pagination. | No changes to RFP required |
| 53 | RFP | L-18 PROPOSAL STRUCTURE Page 122 | 2. Offerors are hereby notified that the content of electronic copies of the proposal must be identical to the CD/DVD copy proposal submitted in response to this solicitation. The Government is not responsible for identifying inconsistencies between the two and may rely on either version at its discretion. | The requirements CD/DVD are vague. Do you want a separate CD/DVD per volume or 1 CD/DVD for all volumes? Are the CD/DVD copy of the proposal due the same as date as the electronic upload to the DoD SAFE web portal? | RFP Section L-18 Part 2 have been revised to remove the requirement for CD/DVD. | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 |
| 54 | RFP | TABLE L1: Proposal Page Limitations Page 123 | Joint Venture (JV)/Teaming Arrangement* * Note: Those files marked with an asterisk require the following pages to be within the proposal volume: Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations, checklist(s) and Acronym List. These pages do not apply to the page limitations. | Since this file is just a one page excel sheet, please confirm that the Government requires a Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations, checklist(s) and Acronym List. | See the answer to question 31. | No changes to RFP required |
| 55 | RFP | L-20 (1) G. Direct Billing Authorization, Page 126 | Direct Billing Authorization. Contractors approved by DCAA for direct billing authorization shall provide, as part of their proposals, a copy of their DCAA direct billing authorization memorandum. This memorandum is required to be signed by the cognizant DCAA office manager and state that the contractor has adequate internal controls over its billing system and submits incurred cost proposals and final vouchers per FAR 52.216-7; therefore, provisional DCAA approval of interim vouchers is not needed. | Per a revision to DFARS 242.803, and in direct communications with DCAA, the direct billing authorization program has ended and it is no longer necessary for DCAA to determine if contractors are eligible to participate in the Direct Bill Program. Can the Government confirm this requirement is no longer necessary or what can be provided instead of a direct billing authorization memorandum to meet this requirement? | See the answer to question 27. | No changes to RFP required |
| 56 | RFP | L-19, 3, Page 123 | Fold-outs are limited up to 11" x 17" and are permissible for Volume 2 and 4 only. Portrait format or landscape format with a |
standard 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial font is required. Fold-outs pages will be counted as one page.
| For tables and illustrations, Offerors may use a Times New Roman or Arial font size not less than 10-point and may be landscape. Page | Can tables and illustrations (graphics) be 10 point font on an 11 x 17 page? | See the answer to question 50. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 57 | RFP | L-19 FORMAT | ||
| 1. Proposal Submission | The document states "Adobe Acrobat version 11 or less shall be used to create the PDF files." . Commercial versions are not Product Versions labeled in the same way. Is it acceptable to use Word and save as PDF (that is normally how I do it and it can be read by PDF reader? | RFP Section L-19 Part 1 Proposal Submission have been revised to state "Adobe Acrobat shall be used to create the PDF files." | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | |
| 58 | RFP | L-20 Content | ||
| A. Proposal Transmittal Letter. | A. Proposal Transmittal Letter is intended. Please clarify what the cover letter must include. Is it only the Statement of Compliance (B) or is it All of Volume 1 (B thru P). If the cover letter is for all of B thru P is Volume 1 a long cover letter? | See the answer to question 18. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 59 | RFP |
L-16 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION
| 1 . PROPOSAL SUBMISSION | The document states "Each Offeror shall submit only one proposal, with cover letter…" Please clarify the difference in the "Proposal Transmittal Letter" and the "Cover Letter". | See the answer to question 18. | No changes to RFP required | |||
| 60 | ATT0063_Past_Performance_Questoinaire | Can the Past Performance Questionnaire be updated to include the Proposal Team it is intended for? The past performance questionnaire does have an area to associate the Team for which the returned questionnaire is to be intended. For example, a company who is bidding as a Prime may also be part of a Team as a sub and may use the same Past Performance for each Proposal submitted. There needs to make an association between the questionnaire returned to the Proposal Team that submitted. | RFP Section L-20 Part 3 Past Performance items A states "The Offeror shall provide a list of all references requested to submit Past Performance |
Questionnaires on the Offeror's behalf. The Government has provided the worksheet, Section J Attachment 0061, Past Performance
| Reference List (PART A), to be filled out by the Offeror." | No changes to RFP required | |||||
| 61 | ATT0019_TEIS_IV_-_Draft_Labor_Category_Descriptions | Can years of experience be substituted for a degree? If yes, how many experience years is equivalent to a bachelor’s degree and how many for a master’s degree? | The Government has re-considered and will allow the substitution of labor for degrees in some labor categories, but not in all cases. Please refer to the updated ATT0019_TEIS_IV_-_Labor_Category_Descriptions | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||
| 62 | ATT0064_CONUS_High_CONUS_OCONUS_Labor_Rates | The headers in tab Total Proposed (i.e. Hours/Base; Hours OY1; Hours OY 2) – should these be all “Base” year hours for High Cost CONUS and OCONUS? | ATT0064 Total Proposed Tab has been updated so that header for cell F19, I19 and L19 all read "Hours/Base" | Will be included in the RFP amendment 1 | ||
| 63 | ATT0067_Estimated_Work_Breakout | Are the percentages applicable across CONUS, CONUS High, and OCONUS? | Yes the percentages applicable across CONUS, CONUS High, and OCONUS. Please refer to ATT0064 which provided the hours to be used for proposals by CONUS, CONUS High and OCNOUS. | No changes to RFP required | ||
| 64 | General | Pricing General | Wage determination is not applicable to OCONUS labor rates. Please provide guidance for OCONUS labor rates. | Correct the Service Contract Act is not applicable to OCONUS labor. See the answer to question 8. | No changes to RFP required | |
| 65 | ATT0021_Sample_Task_Cybersecurity_Pkg.pdf | Will this be an Army or DHA RMF/eMASS process? | DHA | No changes to RFP required | ||
| 66 | ATT0021_Sample_Task_Cybersecurity_Pkg.pdf | Will all three systems, (ESS, ITV, NC), require RMF processing simultaneously? | No additional information will be provided. For any details or information not provided within the sample task, the Offeror shall provide the Government their assumptions within their response. There will be no single correct answer. The Government will evaluate responses based on Section M-4. | No changes to RFP required | ||
| 67 | ATT0021_Sample_Task_Cybersecurity_Pkg.pdf | Will the government enable access to JKO and or DHA milSuite or like capability to align workflow? | No additional information will be provided. For any details or information not provided within the sample task, the Offeror shall provide the Government their assumptions within their response. There will be no single correct answer. The Government will evaluate responses based on Section M-4. | No changes to RFP required | ||
| 68 | ATT0021_Sample_Task_Cybersecurity_Pkg.pdf | What ARMY or DHA portals are in place (or planned) to support the Patch/Scan Sustainment & /IAVA/M? Examples, VRAM or CMRS? | No additional information will be provided. For any details or information not provided within the sample task, the Offeror shall provide the Government their assumptions within their response. There will be no single correct answer. The Government will evaluate responses based on Section M-4. | No changes to RFP required |
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 .