B08.03 Answers to Questions - W912HQ26RA017.docx

Questions to RFP DDVOCs

1. Factor 2 (Sections 3.1.2 and 5.2) and the Factor 4 relevancy description (Section 5.4) reference key-personnel and past-performance experience in "software development specifically in context to real-time modeling for water management and the accompanying data and decision support needs." This language appears to describe a different requirement. Could the Government confirm whether the relevant experience domain evaluated under Factors 2 and 4 is the scope of this solicitation's PWS — the compilation and statistical analysis of deep-draft vessel operating costs and the associated computerized application — rather than real-time water-management modeling software?

Answer to Question 1 – See revised Solicitation form for correction to language

2. Section 3.2.1 instructs offerors to submit a minimum of one (1) recent and relevant project in Volume II, while Section 5.4 provides that an offeror without recent and relevant past performance history will be assigned a neutral rating and not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Could the Government confirm that an offeror without recent and relevant past performance may state so in Volume II and receive a neutral confidence rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), and whether such an offeror may provide substitute evidence of capability (e.g., working software and published analyses) for the Government's consideration?

Answer to Question 2 - If a given offeror determines or takes position they do not have recent and relevant past experience respective to the nature of the work or some aspect(s) of the work they should indicate as such objectively and they will be given a neutral rating where or if such provisions exist for that criteria or aspect within (but not in place of) the overall evaluation. In addition, a given offeror can provide any information on past performance and experience where they determine such information may help to demonstrate or substantiate capabilities deemed applicable to the performance of work described or as outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This is encouraged where reasonable as information provided in this regard allows for more complete and fair evaluation and assessment. However, any offeror should understand that relevant past performance and associated experience is of interest and accordingly valued in assessment of knowledge, skills, and abilities to execute or conduct work set forth in the PWS in a time and cost-efficient manner.

3. The PWS does not specify a place of performance and CLIN 0005 provides for travel reimbursed at cost. Could the Government confirm that performance at the contractor's facility is acceptable, with travel limited to meetings scheduled as needed?

Answer to Question 3 - The place of performance can be a contractor’s facility and location. Given the sensitive nature of data and information handled, the offeror’s facility must provide for an acceptably secure and controlled access area within the offeror’s facility and placement of signed agreements for handling and control for CUI and related products or information assembled, provided or produced under the contract. Physical transfer of data and information between the contractor and the Government will be conducted via an acceptable secure means such as use of DoD SAFE or comparable mechanism. Data, information, and products of concern will be subject to non-disclosure and non-alternative or derivative use and non-retention agreements with any ownership of subject products, data, and information governed by perpetual ownership by IWR and the Government.