Q&A_to_Solicitation_-_W912HQ18T0012.docx

To: Attn: David A. Kaplan, CEHEC-CT Contract Specialist 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3860 david.a.kaplan@usace.army.mil

Subject: Questions - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity (HECSA) FY18 Knowledge Management (KM) Maturity Assessment & Operations Order (OPORD) Lines of Effort (LOE) Support

Solicitation# W912HQ-18-T-0012

Date: July 24, 2018

Questions:

1. RFP Appendix A, Instructions to Offerors, states in the Past Performance requirements that “On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete as of the release date of this solicitation”. This is not clear when considering IDIQ contracts or contracts with option years not yet executed. Would the government consider removing this requirement or changing to a minimum of 1 year of contract performance requirement?

On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete as of the release date of this solicitation or if a multi-year contract, i.e. an IDIQ with option years, 50% completion of a task order issued in the base year.

2. RFP Appendix A, Instructions to Offerors refers to the required information outlined in 52.212-1(b). However, Appendix A is Addenda to 52.212-1. There is no other reference to “(b)”. Are all of the Instructions to Offerors complete and included in Appendix A of the CSS_KM_Maturity_Assessment_FY18.pdf RFP document?

Please read FAR 52.212-1 -- Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items. (DEVIATION 2018-O0013) – Para (b) states:

(b) Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact time specified in this solicitation. Offers may be submitted on the SF 1449, letterhead stationery, or as otherwise specified in the solicitation. As a minimum, offers must show --

(1) The solicitation number;

(2) The time specified in the solicitation for receipt of offers;

(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the offeror;

(4) A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary;

(5) Terms of any express warranty;

(6) Price and any discount terms;

(7) “Remit to” address, if different than mailing address;

(8) A completed copy of the representations and certifications at FAR 52.212-3 (see FAR 52.212-3(b) for those representations and certifications that the offeror shall complete electronically);

(9) Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments;

(10) Past performance information, when included as an evaluation factor, to include recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact with telephone numbers and other relevant information); and

(11) If the offer is not submitted on the SF 1449, include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

3. RFP Appendix A, Instructions to Offerors, states in the Past Performance requirements that offerors should “provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form” Would the government allow for a table to detail all contract information, such as the contract number, PoPs, Value etc., and a narrative for the project description and experience summary?

Yes, any format is fine as long as the information is all inclusive. See #10 in FAR Clause 52.212-1 (b)(10)

4. The RFP states that the government” will award a contract resulting from this combined synopsis solicitation on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of responsible offers whose product/service meets the requirements as listed in the performance work statement”. The solution to the assessment task can be handled in a number of ways, without clarity as to the minimum technically acceptable criteria for the assessment, the government may receive a solution that that must be rated technically acceptable but does not meet their expectations. Would the government consider changing the basis of award to a Best Value award that would allow the government to evaluate the respective quality of the proposed solutions?

No, the requirement is listed as lowest evaluated price of responsible offerors. We are currently not asking for a solution to the tasks as this is the deliverable.

The technical criteria are listed in the combined synopsis solicitation and must be submitted in order to be considered for an award.

Technical – The quote should be clear, concise, and include adequate detail for effective evaluation. The quote should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements of the performance work statement. The Government will evaluate technical acceptability based on the following criteria:

a. Demonstrated knowledge and experience with Knowledge Management processes. The Offeror shall identify demonstrated understanding and experience with implementing KM within the flow of work and the Knowledge Management maturity process utilizing existing Maturity Models (e.g., APQC) for a Federal Government customer.

b. Demonstrated experience in developing lessons learned processes. The contractor shall demonstrate experience in the delivery of a previously developed Lessons Learned program for a Federal Government customer.

c. Demonstrated Knowledge and Experience in developing Knowledge Management Strategies and Planning documents (Operations Orders, Fragmentary Orders, etc.). The contractor shall demonstrate experience in developing short and long term Knowledge Management Strategic Plans and the associated documentation to support implementation.

d. Demonstrated experience in program management. The contractor shall demonstrate the knowledge (education) and/or experience providing direct support to Federal Agencies requiring program management skills (e.g., development of schedules, budgets, synchronization matrices, communications strategies).

5. For PWS Task 6.2, and inclusive of Tasks 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, we need a list of and access to the existing distance learning modules, so we can determine the level of effort and understand how many training products are going to be updated. Alternatively, request the government provide the number of modules requiring updates and the average level of effort required per update.

We will provide the existing training documentation in a separate email. Access to the distance learning modules for inspection in support of Proposal preparation is via the link below.

www.acetraining2018.com Email: mark.a.hainsey@usace.army.mil Password: USACEtr2018!

6. RFP Appendix A, Instructions to Offerors, states in the Past Performance requirements that “Offerors shall submit past performance information for a maximum of 3 contracts or subcontracts completed or on-going within the last 5 years from the release date of this solicitation” Would the government allow past performance citations from the offerors subcontractor?

Yes, Offerors may submit past performance as a prime or from a subcontractor who have relevant experience. If submitting sub-contractor past performance, please describe how the subcontractor performance is relevant to this requirement. All of the information above still defers to the contracts office for final decision since this is a standard clause in the contract. All of the information above still defers to the contracts office for final decision since this is a standard clause in the contract.

7. PWS 6.1 requires the offeror to “Validate the 2017/2018 USACE KM Maturity Assessment input, in accordance with the APQC Capabilities Assessment Tool (CAT)” Please provide clarity of the definition of the “input”. Does this specifically refer to already completed surveys that are input to the APQC CAT? Does the government anticipate the contractor having to do any additional data collection?

The input refers to already collected input. The 2017/2018 CAT input has been completed and collected and will be provided to the contractor. The government does not expect the contractor to do any additional data collection.

571.931.0435 amsgcorp.net 4 | Page