Attach 9 - Question Submission Form Responses - 6 Dec 2023 Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Maintenance Assistance Instruction Team (MAIT) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W912CN23R0027
About this file
This document contains questions submitted in response to solicitation number W912CN23R0027 from the Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command for Maintenance Assistance Instruction Team (MAIT) services. Key details include:
The solicitation requests proposals for providing maintenance and logistics instructional support services for units located in Hawaii and Alaska. It involves formal classroom training, assessments, and staff support across various maintenance and supply disciplines. Historical workload data and training schedules from the past three years are provided to assist offerors in developing accurate staffing plans and pricing. The closing date for proposal submission was November 27, 2023, with questions due by November 26, 2023. Incumbent contractor is identified as Decision Point Corporation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W912CN23R0027-P00002 SOLICITATION AMENDMENT 21DEC23.pdf | ||
| W912CN23R0027-P00001 SOLICITATION AMENDMENT 06DEC23.pdf | ||
| TE- FY24 FORMAL SCHOOLS CATALOG__MB.pdf | ||
| Attach 6 - Wage Determination 2015-5689 Rev 20 17 Jul 23.pdf | ||
| Attach 1 - Performance Assessment Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach 3 - SUBCONTRACTOR-TEAMING PARTNER CONSENT LETTER.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach 5 - DD Form 254_ MAIT.pdf | ||
| Attach 7 - Wage Determination 2015-5681 Rev. 18.pdf | ||
| Attach 2 - Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References.docx | DOCX document | |
| W912CN-23-R-0027 MAIT Solicitation.pdf | ||
| Attach 8 Vendor Question Submission Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attach 4 - Performance Requirements Summary MAIT.pdf |
Show all 12
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/Comment # | Document in Question | ||||
| (PWS, TE, etc.) | Page/Paragraph in Question | ||||
| (be as specific as possible) | Question/Comment | ||||
| (one per line) | Government Response/Disposition | Government Response/Disposition | |||
| 1 | RFP / PWS | General | Are these services being provided under an existing contract, and if so what is that contract number? | W912CN20C0015 | |
| 2 | RFP / PWS | General | Is there an incumbent contractor providing these services now, and if so who is that incumbent company? | Decision Point Coorporation | |
| 3 | W912CN-23-R-0027 MAIT Solicitation document | Page 77, Section 2.2 and Page 86, item 11 | Page 77, Section 2.2: Questions in response to this solicitation are due no later than 27 November 2023 by 8:00am HST to the POCs listed above. Page 86, item 11: Offerors are requested to review Solicitation W912CN23R0027 and to submit questions in writing via email to Ms. Maletta Chan, maletta.a.chan.civ@army.mil, MAJ Michael Bresette, michael.h.bresette.mil@army.mil, and Mr. Ryan M. Brown, ryan.m.brown78.civ@army.mil NLT 9:00am HST on 26 November 2023 to allow for the preparation of the answers to be provided by issuance of a solicitation amendment to all prospective offerors. Can you please clarify which is the correct date for questions? | Corrected on SAM | |
| 4 | PWS | PWS Section 1.3 | PWS 1.3 (Objectives) specifies the “focus of the MAIT shall be on unit combat readiness. MAIT Team shall perform the following Support.” Paragraph 1.3 goes on to list the support the MAIT Team will provide. With respect to the 16 elements of performance, 1.3.1 – 1.3.16, during the last 12-month period of performance, please specify the following: | ||
| 5 | a. The number of annual instructional periods or classes provided by the MAIT Team for the past period of performance (PoP) for each of the support functions listed (1.3.1 – 1.3.16) – in each location. | Supply Managers -7 , Maintenance Manager-11, Corrosion Monitor-5, GCSS-Army CSDP-11, GCSS-Army CMDP-10, GCSS-Army ERPS-4, EFLIPL-2 roadsidde inspections- 97 Course. The mouthly classes ranges from 5-16 Soldiers or as request by the units. | |||
| 6 | b. The number of instructional or contact hours provided by the MAIT Team for the past PoP for each of the support functions listed (1.3.1 – 1.3.16) – in each location. | Supply Managers -480hrs , Maintenance Manager-480hrs, Corrosion Monitor-72hrs, GCSS-Army CSDP-96hrs, GCSS-Army CMDP-144hrs, GCSS-Army ERPS-480hrs, EFLIPL-96hrs, Classroom upon request-240hrs, unit Armor-640hrsCourse, Roadside inspection- 194hrs | |||
| 7 | c. The average class size annually for instructional periods or classes, for the past PoP broken down by support functions listed (1.3.1 – 1.3.16) – in each location. | Average annual class size for instructional periods range from 5-16 Soldiers. | |||
| 8 | d. The total number of Soldiers or civilians (total) who received instruction during the past PoP by the MAIT Team – in each location. | Hawaii-456 Soldiers; Alaska- 75 Soldiers over the course of 12 month POP | |||
| 9 | e. For each class or training delivered is only one instructor/course developer required to teach that directed class? If not, please provide a list of classes requiring multiple instructors. | Per PWS 5.2. Each course of instruction will have a minimum of two (2) instructors present to teach forml classroom instruction. | |||
| 10 | f. Can the government provide a training calendar/schedule for the last three years by location? If so, please provide it. | See attachments/Chapter 9 of Hawaii and Alaska schedules. | |||
| 11 | g. What is the frequency (by location) of TDY required each year? | TDY frequency is based on the locations and unit needs/requirements | |||
| 12 | Solicitation Section B | Pages 3-12 CLINs X004 Annual TDY Alaska Personnel | The driving distance between Anchorage and Fairbanks is substantial; overnight stays would be required to perform tasks at Fort Wainright. Will the government consider increasing the AK TDY CLIN values to account for JBER-based personnel traveling regularly to Fairbanks? | Yes, all TDYs are reviewed and approved by the COR IAW PWS 1.6.12.1. | |
| 13 | Solicitation PWS | Page 13, 1.1 Description of Services & 1.6.4 Place of Performance | Descriptions of Services states Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, "faculties", …(implies performance at Contractor Site): whereas 1.6.4 PoP provides Government sites where work is to be performed (implies Government Site). Please confirm that all work will be at Government Site. | Yes, all work will be conducted at Government Site. | |
| 14 | Solicitation Section I | Page 72, Section I - Contract Clauses, Clause 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires | Clause 52.222-42 lists only a single class of service employees, Technical Instructor/Course Developer WG-10/3. Will the government please confirm that only the single class listed applies to this solicitation, including non-Key Personnel? | Reference amended clause 52.222-42 in Solicitation Admendment | |
| 15 | Solicitation Section I | Page 72, Section I - Contract Clauses, Clause 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires | Will the government provide the Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires for this RFP (i.e. the GS equivalent in addition to Wage Determination mapping)? | Reference amended clause 52.222-42 in Solicitation Admendment | |
| 16 | Attachment 4 PRS 5.1 | Will the Government please provide the historical workload for 5.1 Assessment/Evaluations? | See RA answer in block 6 | ||
| 17 | Attachment 4 PRS 5.2 | Will the Government please provide the historical workload for 5.2 Formal Classroom Instruction to include frequency per year by location and number of students per class? | Supply Manager, Maintenance Manager, Corrosion Monitor, GCSS-Army CSDP, GCSS-Army CMDP, GCSS-Army ERPS Course. The average monthly classes range from 5-16 Soldiers or as needed/requested by the units. | ||
| 18 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.6 | Page 25/Para 1: The PWS paragraph 1.6.10.6 states that the "Program Manager will monitor the effectiveness of training on the team…" | Is this an evaluation of the MAIT team or is this a requirement to obtain student evaluations of the instruction provided? | Program Manager (PM) will monitor the overall performance of MAIT Team utilizing their experience and the After Action Report feedback from the Soldiers | |
| 19 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.7 | Page 25/Para 1 under 1.6.10.7: The paragraph refers to "Assistant Program Developers". | Are the "Assistant Program Developers" decsribed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.7 the same as the "Assistant Program Manager (Maintenance)/Training Developer" and the "Assistant Program Manager (Supply)/Training Developer" listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.2? | Yes, the Assistant Program Manager (APM) and Assistant Program Developers (APD) are the same individual. | |
| 20 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.8 | Page 26/Para 1 under 1.6.10.8: The paragraph refers to "Assistant Program Developer". | Is the "Assistant Program Developer" described in PWS paragraph 1.6.10.8 the same as the "Assistant Porgram Manager (Dual SME Maintenance/Supply)/Training Developer" listed in PWS Paragraph 1.6.10.2? | No, they are not the same individual as described in APM/APD responsibilities described in 1.6.10.2. The APM/APD is a dual SME for Alaska as described in 1.6.10.8 | |
| 21 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.9 | Page 27/Para 1 - Team Staffing: The paragraph refers to "Course may be instructor based, computer-based, simulator based, interactive, or non-interactive." | Will the Government please provide the type of instruction that has been provided historically the Formal Classroom Instruction? Is all courseware fully developed? | Supply Managers, Maintenance Manager, Corrosion Monitor, GCSS-Army CSDP, GCSS-Army CMDP, GCSS-Army ERPS Course. Yes, courseware is fully develped and updated IAW CASCOM and TRADOC POI. | |
| 22 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.9 | Page 26 - Team Staffing: The paragraph referes to "Food Service and Transportation SMEs" not being required to be knowledgeable of GCSS-Army. | Is it the Government's expectation that Food Service and Transportation SMEs will be limited to their area of expertise? If so will the contractor be required to have such expertise in both Hawaii and Alaska? | Food Service SME and Transportation SME (1 set of SMEs) based out of Hawaii, will be required to go TDY at units request within the Indo-Pacific theater. | |
| 23 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.9 | Page 26 & 27 - Team Staffing: The paragraph describes the expertise for team members. | Is it the Government's expectation that the Hawaii based team and the Alaska based team will be self sufficient when it comes to providing the full range of expertise? | The Government is expecting Hawaii to have a larger SME team based on the units requirement. Hawaii will provide additional SME team members to Alaska at units request. | |
| 24 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.9 and 1.6.10.10 Table 1 | Pages 26 - 29 - Team Staffing & Prior Experience: The paragraph 1.6.10.9 requires all individuals be SMEs (5 years' experience) in all of the disciplines listed in 1.6.10.10 Table 1 to include Food Service and Deployment> | Is it the Government's expectation that every member of the team also be Food Service and Transportation SMEs in addition to Maintenance and Supply. Food Service and Transportation are relatively specialized fields within the larger Logistics environment. We suggest that the wording be changed to state that the "Team must possess SME in Food Service and Deployment. " This language provides the Government the expertise required for these two disciplines which are very narrow. | The Government concurs with the suggestion that the wording be changed to state "Team must possess SME in Food Service and Deployment." | |
| 25 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.9 and 1.6.10.10 Table 1 | Pages 26 - 29 - Team Staffing & Prior Experience: The paragraph 1.6.10.9 requires all individuals be SMEs (5 years' experience) in all of the disciplines listed in 1.6.10.10 Table 1 to include Food Service and Deployment> | Is it the Government's expectation that every member of the team also be Food Service and Transportation SMEs in addition to Maintenance and Supply. Food Service and Transportation are relatively specialized fields within the larger Logistics environment. Is the Contractor required to have such expertise in both Hawaii and Alaska or can the support be provided through the performance of TDY by team members? | Government is expecting Hawaii to have a larger SME team based on the units requirement. Hawaii will provide additional SME team members to provide supplemental support to Alaska at units request. | |
| 26 | RFP PWS 1.6.15.1 | Page 35 - Phase-in: The paragraph describes staffing during the Phase-in and states the "contractor shall have the Program Manager and Training developer on board." | Will the Government please clarify if the Assistant Program Managers/Training Developers listed as Key Personnel (Hawaii and Alaska) are expected to be on board during the Phase-in period? | Yes, the Government is expecting all "key personnel" onboarded at the start of phase-in period. | |
| 27 | RFP PWS Part 3, 3.4 | Page 44 - Government Furnished Information (GFI): "will be provided as needed" | Will the Government please clarify that GFI includes the granting of access/sponsorhip to access all applicable logistics information systems/services requried to perform the duties as described in the PWS? | Government will support the granting of access/sponsorship to all applicable logistics information systems/services required in performance of duties as outlined in the PWS. | |
| 28 | RFP PWS Part 5 | Page 44 - Part 5 Performance Requirements (All): describes the team capabilities required to include the types of assessments/evaluations, formal classroom training, and staff support. | The Contractor is required to provide a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) offer which requires a detailed understanding of the workload requirements to develop and appropriate basis of estimate and work breakdown structure to ensure appropriate staffing at each geographic location. There are multiple military installations in both states. Information regarding the specific stationing locations for the team members will provide a greater depth of understanding for a more accurate work breakdown structure and basis of estimate. Will the Government please provide the historical or predicted workload by geograpic location? | See RA answer in block 6 | |
| 29 | RFP PWS 3.1 | Page 43- Government Furnished Equipment and Services (GFE) | Will the government clarify if tools, TMDE will be provided to the MAIT team as they perform roadside inspection and other required maintenance/inspection tasks? | No, GFE tools will not be provided to MAIT contractor team to perform roadside inspections. | |
| 30 | RFP PWS 3.1.1 | Page 94 - Section M, Para 3.1.1 (All) | We appreciate the information provided concerning the historical staffing level. However, we can provide a more accurate and informative staffing chart with additional information regarding the historical workload data (manhours expended) to support all tasks by task. Will the government provide the historical workload data by location and task? | See RA answer in block 6 | |
| 31 | Solicitation | Section L, 8.1.2, pg. 82 - 8.1.2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References (Attachment 2/Appendix J). |
Offerors shall submit information on any Federal, State, and local government and private contracts most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the Maintenance Assistance and Instruction Team Services. This information is required on offeror, subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners considered critical to overall successful performance.
Information for an individual task order, BPA call, delivery order, purchase order, or contract shall be submitted as a separate PPI reference. The offeror shall provide a maximum of three (3) contract references, each with a PPI Sheet identifying active or completed contracts, for the prime offeror. In addition, the offeror may provide a maximum of three (3) different contract references, each with a PPI Sheet identifying active or completed contracts, for each proposed critical subcontractor, teaming partner or joint venture partner. To clarify, if an offeror has two subcontractors or partners, the offeror may submit up to 9 references: three references as prime and three for each subcontractor or partner. PPI reference inputs will be treated as source selection information IAW FAR Part 2.101 and 3.104. Can offerors include an IDIQ contract and the TOs under the IDIQ contract as 1 contract reference? Information for an individual task order, BPA call, delivery order, purchase order, or contract shall be submitted as a separate PPI reference.
32 Solicitation Section L, 7.0 and 7.1, pgs 80-81
7.1. To facilitate evaluation, the Technical Volume shall clearly and fully demonstrate that offerors have a thorough understanding of the requirements and can staff the key positions necessary to accomplish the effort. This volume of the proposal shall consist of four separate resumes (one for each of the four Key Personnel) that meet or exceed minimum qualifications outlined in the Performance Work Statement, section 1.6.10. The offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the individuals’ qualifications meet or exceed the qualifications of the RFP, specifically identifying education, professional experience (including time in each position), certifications, and clearance information. Failure to meet the minimum requirements will be considered unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, be prepared in a form consistent with the Technical Criteria set forth in the Evaluation Factors for Award, of this solicitation. All information that the offeror deems appropriate to address for this factor must be
| included in the proposal in an orderly format. This section shall not contain any pricing data. | Resume requirements heavily favors the incumbent contractor. Recommend for the government to remove this requirement and request contractors approach to staffing and retention with offerors providing re-badge effort with approaches and experience hiring qualified incumbent staff. | The Government requires that qualified labor be located in order to begin performance on day 1 of the contract. As such, resumes for key positions are evaluated as a "acceptable or unacceptable" -- potential offerors are required to display their ability to staff key positions by providing resumes sufficient to demonstrate that they exceed the experience benchmarks in the solicitation; and are thereby, qualified to meet the requirements of the PWS. This is not being considered in the tradeoff decision; however, contractors must be rated "acceptable" to undergo a past performance evalution. | ||
| 33 | Solicitation | W912CN23R0027 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) Page 14 | PWS appears to have a duplication |
1.3.11. Unit Armorer instruction and evaluations
1.3.12. Unit Armorer instruction and evaluations
| This is an error and will be corrected. | |||||
| 34 | Solicitation | Section M, pg. 93 - 2. EVALUATION FACTOR TRADEOFF IMPORTANCE. The Performance Price tradeoff process permits award to offerors with a higher Performance Confidence rating, if the price differential is warranted. Technical Acceptability – Key Personnel & Staffing will be assessed on an “Acceptable / Unacceptable” basis. Proposal’s must be rated “Acceptable” under the technical factor to undergo a Past Performance and Price evaluation. Past Performance is approximately | |||
| equal to Price. | Unacceptable ratings warrants a lowest price technically acceptable bid (LPTA). Recommend the government to expand on what will be accessed if price differential is warranted and all offerors are "acceptable". | This is a performance price tradeoff evaulation. Only Key Personnel and Staffing are evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Past Performance and Price are the only factors included in the tradeoff. | |||
| 35 | Solicitation | Section L, 7.1 | Please explain how the requirement for resumes for four (4) key positions permits fair competition for this Solicitation, and how the resume requirement does not unduly discriminate against small businesses and results in preferential treatment of the incumbent contractor. | See answer to question #32 | |
| 36 | Solicitation | Section L, 7.1 | Does the evaluation of resumes of the current incumbent employees have higher weight than others that meet the same education and experience? | No. The evaluation of resumes is an acceptable or unacceptable evaluation. | |
| 37 | Solicitation | Section L, 7.1 | As the preponderance of labor on this contract falls under the service contract, does EO 14055 apply to this solicitation? | No, does not apply | |
| 38 | Solicitation | Section L, 7.1 and Section M, 3.1.1 | If a non-incumbent company wins with a separate slate of resumes (other than the incumbents’ employees), is the government going to require the winner to give “first right of refusal” to the employees currently in position? Or will the Government require or allow replacement of incumbent critical position employees? | EO 14055 does not apply | |
| 39 | Solicitation Section B | Pages 3-12, CLINs X003 and X004 | Should annual TDY CLINs be Cost, not FFP? | These are unpriced, estimated CLINs. Once the vouchers are validated the price is fixed, thus FPP remains. | |
| 40 | Solicitation PWS | Page 14, 1.3 Objectives, 1.3.11 & 1.3.12 | 1.3.11. Unit Armorer instruction and evaluations and 1.3.12. Unit Armorer instruction and evaluations appear to be duplicates, please confirm that 1.3.12 should be deleted? | See answer to question #33 | |
| 41 | Solicitation Section I | Page 72, Section I - Contract Clauses, Clause 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires | For the Government-provided Attachment 2: Past Performance Information Sheet, can the Offeror modify the template to be in accordance with the 5.3.1 General Page Instructions ("text size shall be no less than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 10-point font, single column, normal proportional spacing | ||
| and one inch margins")? | Yes | ||||
| 42 | Solicitation, 3. Submission of Proposals | Page 77 All Vendors can view solicitations in the Solicitation Module by selecting “SOLICITATION SEARCH” in the Award section or | |||
| “Solicitation Search” under the SUPPORT section at the bottom of the page. Search for W912CN23R0027 postings. The SAM.gov site will reference back to this module. | In checking PIEE, the USARPAC MAIT solicitaiton is not currently posted. Will the Government provide additional information on when the RFP will be posted in PIEE? | W912CN23R0027 has been added to the PIEE "Solicitation" Module | |||
| 43 | Solicitation Instructions for Volume I, Technical Acceptability | Page 81, 7.4. Technical – Key Personnel & Staffing Chart. | Please confirm that the ONLY required information for the Staffing Chart is the number of personnel aligned to the effort, position title, and anticipated staffing location with all other required information provided in the Key Personnel resumes. | Yes, confirmed | |
| 44 | PWS | Page 82, Paragraph 8.1.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References (Attachment 2/Appendix J) | Allowing a maximum of three (3) Past Performances per teammate could place an undue burden on the Government regarding the time it takes to review a proposal, especially where teams may be larger. In light of the evaluation factors where Past Performance is equal to price, we recommend that the Government limit Past Performances to a total of three (3) for the submitting team. We believe that this will allow the Government to concentrate on quality Past Performances rather than a quantity of Past Performances. | We appreciate the concern, however the page limitation is in place to reduce undue burden | |
| 45 | Solicitation Instructions for Volume III, Cost/Price | Page 86, 9.2.5.2. VETS-4212 (FAR 52.222-35 & 52.222-37): Provide documentation that the prime, and any subcontractors over $150k (total value), is/are current with their reporting as required by FAR Subpart 22.13. | Due to the proprietary nature of VETS-4212 documentation, please confirm that subcontractors can submit the required documentation directly to the Government via email. | Yes | |
| 46 | RFP PWS Para 1.3.11 and 1.3.12 | Page 14: Unit Armorer instruction and evaluations | Are 1.3.11 and 1.3.12 duplicate paragraphs? | See answer to question #33 | |
| 47 | RFP PWS 1.6.10.10 | Page 27 & 28 - Prior Experience: The paragraph states that the "Contractor shall have a minimum two (2) years' expereince…" | Will the Government please confirm that this requirement pertains to the "Contractor" as an entity and not to the individuals performing the effort? | "Contractor," in this instance, is referencing the entity. Individual personnel's experience requirements are listed elsewhere throughout the PWS. | |
| 48 | RFP PWSPart 3, 3.3 | Page 44 - Government Furnished Items: lists the Government Furnished Items. | Is it the Contractors responsibility to provide any required personal protective equipment (PPE) such as safety shoes, hard hats, reflective vests, gloves, signage (for roadside inspections) for the performance of MAIT duties to include Maintenance Terrain Walks and Roadside Inspections? | Contractor will provide appropriate PPE to employees IAW OSHA guidance. Government does not provide signage for roadside inspections. | |
| 49 | RFP PWS Section L | Page 81 - Section 8 Instructions for Volume II, Past Performance (Factor 1) | Does the Government want separate Attachment 2 documents for each PPI reference or can multiple Attachment 2s be inlcuded (one for each PPI) in one Past Performance Volume? | Multiple attachment 2s can be included (one for each PPI) in one Past Performance Volume | |
| 50 | RFP PWS Section L | Page 81 - Section 8 Instructions for Volume II, Past Performance (Factor 1) | Is the 3 page limit for each PPI inclusive of all of the Attachment 2 content or just that section within Attachment 2 relating to the specifics of the work performed (response to "Provide a brief description of relevant past experience by giving details on how the company and/or key personnel performed services found in the Performance Work Statement’s Part 5...")? | 3 Page limit on each PPI is the total length of the PPI with the contractor added information. Contractor's may delete the prompting information in bold under "B." | |
| 51 | RFP PWS Section M | Page 95 - Section 3.2.2.1 Recency Determination language: A recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided by the offeror or found by the Government. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. | Using November 16, 2023 as the issuance date of the MAIT solicitation, it is our understanding that any contract with a period of performance end date no earlier than November 16, 2020 and with active performance of at least 12 months (even though some of the active performance is not within 3 years of the issuance of the MAIT solicitation) will be determined recent. It is also our understanding that a contract starting after November 16, 2022 would not be considered recent as it would not have completed 12 months of active performance. Examples: |
Contract# PoP Start PoP end Recent Validity Check 1 11/15/2018 11/16/2020 Yes PoP end date is outside the 3 years of the MAIT solicitation issuance 2 11/17/2023 11/16/2026 No PoP start will not allow 12 months of active performance prior to the MAIT solicitation issuance 3 11/15/2021 07/15/2022 No Contract active performance does not meet the minimum 12 month criteria
| Does the government concur with this understanding? If not, please provide additional clarity around the requirement for recency. | Yes, the Government concurs with this understanding | ||||
| 52 | RFP PWS 1.6.10 | Page 23 - Key positions: -will the government clarify if the key personnel are exempt positions.C19 | Will the government clarify if the key personnel are exempt positions? | See answer to question #15 | |
| 53 | |||||
| 54 | |||||
| 55 | |||||
| 56 | |||||
| 57 | |||||
| 58 | |||||
| 59 | |||||
| 60 | |||||
| 61 | |||||
| 62 | |||||
| 63 | |||||
| 64 | |||||
| 65 | |||||
| 66 | |||||
| 67 | |||||
| 68 | |||||
| 69 | |||||
| 70 | |||||
| 71 | |||||
| 72 | |||||
| 73 | |||||
| 74 | |||||
| 75 | |||||
| 76 | |||||
| 77 | |||||
| 78 | |||||
| 79 | |||||
| 80 | |||||
| 81 | |||||
| 82 | |||||
| 83 | |||||
| 84 | |||||
| 85 | |||||
| 86 | |||||
| 87 | |||||
| 88 | |||||
| 89 | |||||
| 90 | |||||
| 91 | |||||
| 92 | |||||
| 93 | |||||
| 94 | |||||
| 95 | |||||
| 96 | |||||
| 97 | |||||
| 98 | |||||
| 99 | |||||
| 100 | |||||
| 101 | |||||
| 102 | |||||
| 103 | |||||
| 104 | |||||
| 105 | |||||
| 106 | |||||
| 107 | |||||
| 108 | |||||
| 109 | |||||
| 110 | |||||
| 111 | |||||
| 112 | |||||
| 113 | |||||
| 114 | |||||
| 115 | |||||
| 116 | |||||
| 117 | |||||
| 118 | |||||
| 119 | |||||
| 120 | |||||
| 121 | |||||
| 122 | |||||
| 123 | |||||
| 124 | |||||
| 125 | |||||
| 126 | |||||
| 127 | |||||
| 128 | |||||
| 129 | |||||
| 130 | |||||
| 131 | |||||
| 132 | |||||
| 133 | |||||
| 134 | |||||
| 135 | |||||
| 136 | |||||
| 137 | |||||
| 138 | |||||
| 139 | |||||
| 140 | |||||
| 141 | |||||
| 142 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .