A07.14.01__W9132T18R0003_Q_AND_A.docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SMS Engineering Research and Development IDIQ W9132T18R0003

Question 1. Is there an incumbent contractor for this effort or is this a new requirement?

Government Response: No there is no incumbent, this is considered a new requirement.

Question 2. Is there any additional information concerning the potential location of work?

Government Response: As an IDIQ, the place of performance would be specified on the individual task orders. Most will likely be at the contractor’s location although some work may be required to be performed at the CERL lab or at another government installation.

Question 3. Is this the same effort as the pre-solicitation notice from spring 2017?

Government Response: Yes, this is the follow-on to the Request for Information W9132T-17-I-0001.

Question 4. Can you confirm if there would be any conflicts of interest if the firm that was awarded this IDIQ in support of providing information to be used in SMS systems primarily for utilities would be precluded from any future work/new contracts that would require the use of the new SMS utility tool?

Government Response: Regarding the conflict of interest, the solicitation includes a paragraph regarding this subject. As it states, we will specify in the individual task orders if we feel it will lead to a potential conflict. The primary intent of this solicitation will be for the contractors to provide content for a future SMS system and, therefore, it is believed there is very little chance that a conflict will exist since the content provided under our contract should not dictate that a particular contractor would have an advantage in developing the system itself or from using the new system after it is developed. In addition, if the RFQ for an individual task order states that a potential exists for a conflict of interest, the vendor could always choose not to respond to that particular task order, but that would not preclude them from receiving an award for other task orders.

Question 5. Would CERL be interested in a direct award?

Government Response: An 8(a) direct award is not possible because the dollar value of the action would require us to compete the action. Our market research was inconclusive to determine if two or more small business vendors were capable of meeting our requirements, therefore our intent is a full and open competition with a small business participation evaluation factor. The Government intends to make multiple awards as a result of this solicitation to ensure competition at the task order level.

Question 6. Does the modification posted as solicitation number W9132T18R0003 on FBO contain requirements similar to an existing contract or will this be a new requirement?

Government Response: This will be a new requirement.

Question 7. When I try to go to the SMS page at the link provided in the RFP Announcement (https://www.sms.erdc.dren.mil/) I get a message that the website’s security certification has been revoked and I should close the site immediately. Can you provide another link to the BUILDER training modules?

Government Response: The certificate is probably not revoked, but it is issued by DoD and the vendor’s computer may not be configured to accept these. See https://iase.disa.mil/pki-pke/getting_started/Pages/index.aspx for more information on the right certificate install steps (and downloads).

Question 8. Please provide a WORD file or fillable PDF of SF 33 (the scanned document does not allow inserts of data).

Government Response: A file has been added to the FBO announcement titled “Word Version SF33”.

Question 9. Please confirm that an Offeror may opt to submit on one or all nine of the scope of work items listed as C.2.a through C.2.i

Government Response: Yes, an offeror may submit a proposal for one or any number of work items or technical areas listed as C.2.a through C.2.i.

Question 10. In light of the paperwork reduction act, may we send to ERDC-CERL, previously received ACASS and CPARS ratings from federal agencies?

Government Response: No. ERDC-CERL has or can obtain access to information in other Government systems, so there is no need to send these ratings as part of the proposal. Reference is made to Section L.2.a. regarding past performance proposal page limitations and L.3.b. regarding the past performance documentation to be submitted for this proposal.

Question 11. May a previously submitted USACE/NAVFAC standardized Past Performance Questionnaire be submitted to ERDC/CERL in lieu of Attachment 3?

Government Response: No. Reference Paragraph L.2.a. and L.3.b which both state no completed past performance questionnaires shall be submitted with the proposal.