A2A3_Questions_&_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- A2A3 Suppot Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9133L-17-R-A2A3
- Issued by
- Department of the Army National Guard
About this file
A2A3 Questions & Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| A2A3_Resume_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W9133L-17-R-0034_(A2A3)_-_Amendment_23_June_17.docx | DOCX document | |
| A2A3_Travel_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A2A3_Addtnl_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W9133L-17-R-0034_(A2A3)_-_07_June.docx | DOCX document | |
| A2A3_-_Attachment_2_-_(Past_Perfomance_Questionnaire).docx | DOCX document | |
| W9133L-17-R-0034_Solicitation.docx | DOCX document | |
| A2A3_-_Attachment_1_(Sample_Letter).docx | DOCX document | |
| PWS_(15_July_2016).docx | DOCX document |
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
| DOCUMENT | PAGE # | QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| Solicitation | 1, Part 9 | There is no hour or date filled in. Does the Government want bidders to fill in Section 9 with the data available on Page 87 paragraph 1? | This section is for sealed bids please see Pg87 Section L | |
| 2 thru 8 | There are no dates of service associated with labor and travel CLINS. We assume the Government wants to remain flexible on award due to changes in the Source Selection Schedule. We would request the Government provide an anticipated start date to allow bidders to conduct a cost analysis and basis of estimates per accounting practices. We understand the estimated start date may change. | Anticipated start date is 1 Oct 2017. | ||
| 2 thru 8 | The Labor CLINS require using 1960 hours per person to support services required by the contract. It appears the Government may be requiring work to be performed more than a normal full time 40-hour work week. Please provide more clarification on why the Government is mandating 1960 hours for each position | Should be 1920 hours for each position. | ||
| 9 Para 1.3 | Request the Government provide an anticipated contract start date. | Anticipated start date is 1 Oct 2017. | ||
| 11 Para1.5.4 | Request the Government provide a copy of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to be used on this contract. | See the PRS section of the PWS | ||
| 12, Para 1.6.b | Last sentence of paragraph states “…require the person or persons to have an interim TS/SCI with a Counter-Intelligence (CI) polygraph.” Request more clarification on this requirement. We understand that there is an “interim TS” clearance; however, we don’t believe there is such a thing as “interim SCI” or ability to gain SCI access with an interim TS. Is this available to contractor performing on this contract? | Should read "Ensure personnel assigned under this PWS have TS/SCI eligibility and be entered in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) showing proper eligibility before performing any work under this contract effort. Six efforts (Para 5.2 Support to the ANG Advisor to 25th AF, Para 5.5.2 Airborne ISR Systems Support, Para 5.5.7 SIGINT/Cyber FAM support, Para 5.5.11 Ground ISR Systems Support, Para 5.5.12 All-Source Intelligence FAM and Systems Support and Para 5.6 ANG Cyber-ISR LNO LNO to 659 ISRG) require the person or persons to have TS/SCI eligibility with a Counter-Intelligence (CI) polygraph." | ||
| 12, Para 1.6.b | Last sentence of paragraph states “…require the person or persons to have an interim TS/SCI with a Counter-Intelligence (CI) polygraph.” Request more clarification on this requirement. If there is a requirement to have SCI access, recommend changing the requirement to “Top Secret Security Clearance with SCI eligibility”. The way it is currently written, candidates would have to be already read into SCI. Individuals do not retain SCI access once they leave positions requiring SCI access. Also, we do not believe there is “interim SCI access.” | Should read "Ensure personnel assigned under this PWS have TS/SCI eligibility and be entered in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) showing proper eligibility before performing any work under this contract effort. Six efforts (Para 5.2 Support to the ANG Advisor to 25th AF, Para 5.5.2 Airborne ISR Systems Support, Para 5.5.7 SIGINT/Cyber FAM support, Para 5.5.11 Ground ISR Systems Support, Para 5.5.12 All-Source Intelligence FAM and Systems Support and Para 5.6 ANG Cyber-ISR LNO LNO to 659 ISRG) require the person or persons to have TS/SCI eligibility with a Counter-Intelligence (CI) polygraph." | ||
| 25, Para 4.2 | DSS does not grant SCI access. Recommend updating the requirement to read “…shall have a current TOP SECRET security clearance granted by the Defense Industry Security Clearance Office and be eligible for SCI access.” | Facility is required to be at the SECRET level. | ||
| 25, Para 4.2 | Should the Contractors Facility Clearance be TOP SECRET versus SECRET? As we understand DSS requirements, if you have one person on contract that must possess a TOP SECRET security clearance, the Contractor’s Facility Clearance must be TOP SECRET. Please verify this requirement is accurate. | Requirement is accurate. | ||
| 25, Para 5.0 | Will the Government provide minimum personnel qualifications for each position described under paragraph 5.0? | Prefer 10+ years experience in that area of responsibility/expertise | ||
| 69, Clause 52.222-17 | Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers. Are there any employees on the current contract that will be covered by this clause? Since the successful bidder must offer follow-on employment to all Service Employees, as defined by the clause, this information is needed to ensure proper cost/price preparations and accommodations for those personnel in covered positions. | Yes there are current employees on the current contract | ||
| 69, Clause 52.222-17 | Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers. Request the Government provide the applicable Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Determination tables for each performance location. | Reference the PWS for locations. DOL Wage will be determined by your selected work pool mix | ||
| 87, Para 1 | Please verify the Government POC can receive FEDEX deliveries to the address stated without any specialized access requirements. | Yes FEDEX deliveries can be received | ||
| 87, Para 1 | Please provide a telephone number for the Government POC bidders can use when ordering FEDEX deliveries. This is necessary as part of the destination/receiver information required by FEDEX. | Arlene Y Davis (240)612-7501 | ||
| 92, Para B.4 | a. Please verify there is no limit on the page length or number of Past Performance citations provided for evaluation | Prefer 5 pages or less | ||
| 92, Para B.4 | a. Reference states “Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 51% percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.” Please confirm the Small Business prime contractor must perform at least 51% of total proposal price. | Confirmed | ||
| 92, Para B.4 | a. Reference states “Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 51% percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.” How many past performance citations must be provided for teaming partners proposed as teaming partners? The current wording of the requirement is confusing. Only one teaming partner can perform 51% of the work – expected to be the Prime Offeror. We recommend “at least one (1) past performance citation from each subcontractor proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed labor price.” | Past performance is required for all contractors prime and subs | P | |
| 96 | Bullet at top of page. Reference states “* Applicable Overhead or G&A factor(s). Bullet reference follows the DIRECT LABOR TABLE. There is no reference to “*” within the table. Please clarify the Government’s intent. | The Govenrment is taking out the "Applicable Overhead or G&A Factor(s) of the Solicitation | ||
| 96 | First Paragraph. Reference states “Such direct submission must include the same information as specified in (b) above, in the same format and media, and must exactly mesh with the prime contractor’s proposal.” While reference to “(b)” exists, we do not believe that was the Government’s intent. Please confirm or provide guidance on the correct reference. | Confirm. All submission prime/sub much be in the same format and media. | ||
| 96 | Last four paragraphs. Please acknowledge the last 4 paragraphs on this page are a duplication of previous paragraphs on the same page and should be deleted. | Looks duplicative to me | ||
| 98 | First paragraph. Reference includes: “The Past Performance Factor is more important than Small Business Participation Plan. Small Business Participation Plan is more important than Price.” Please confirm all references to the Small Business Participation Plan should be ignored. | Confirmed ignore Small Business participation Plan | ||
| Is this contract a follow-on to W9133L-11-C-0015, awarded to Innovate International Intelligence & Integration (I-4) LLC on 31 March 2011? If not, is there an incumbent contractor providing these services today, and can the Government provide the name of that company and the contract number? | This is a follow-on to contract W9133L-11-C-0015. |
| RFP Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices (Schedule B), CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002. To enable offerors to accurately estimate the travel costs for these CLINs as accurately as possible, will the Government please provide the following information by FTE: estimated number of trips, destination, and duration? Or, will the Government consider providing a “plug” cost for each travel CLIN, in lieu of asking offerors to estimate travel costs, to level the playing field for all offerors? | 95-115 trips/year, 3-5 days in length to US states & territories |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 4.C, Proposal Format, states, “digital copies shall be provided on CD-ROM disk in Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and/or Excel.” Will the Government allow digital copies of all proposal volumes to be submitted in Adobe Portable Document File (.PDF) format? | 1 copy of each volume must be hard copy with the exception of management/technical. 1 full digital set is acceptable |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 4H, Indexing, states, “Tab indexing shall be used to identify Section s.” However, the instructions for Volume II (paragraph 5B) do not specify tabs. Does the requirement for tab indexing still apply to Volume II? | YES |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5A, Volume I – General, Tab A, Exceptions/Assumptions. Should pricing assumptions which would normally be included in Volume IV also be included in Tab A of Volume I? | YES |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5A, Volume I – General, Tab B, SF 33, states, “The offeror is cautioned that the SF 33 must contain an original signature in block 17 of the form.” Is an original signature which has been digitized and added to the SF 33 acceptable? | YES |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B3)a), Factor 1 Mission Capability, states, “The contractor shall describe the staffing plan, asset management, logistic support and information assurance for maintaining support continuity.” Does “describe the staffing plan” imply that an offeror provide a matrix with a complete listing of proposed staff for each task listed the PWS paragraph 5.0? If so, are offerors required to submit resumes for every member of our planned staff? Or, does paragraph 5B3)a) intend that an offeror should describe how we will staff the required tasks (i.e., describe the procedures we use to provide qualified and cleared staff)? | IAW 5b3 describe the staffing plan |
| Can the Government please clarify what is meant by “describe asset management” in RFP Section L, paragraph 5B3)a)? Are “assets” the technical staff that offerors will provide under this contract? Or, does this requirement refer to physical assets, such as those referenced in PWS paragraph 5.0 as “ANG assets?” If the latter, can the government provide a list of all such assets for which an offeror is required to describe our management procedures? | The assets are the technical support that the contract is to provide |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B4a, Volume III – Past Performance, states, “Past Performance information described herein is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform 51% percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.” Does this statement mean that past performance information is required on a teaming partner only if that partner is proposed to perform 51% of the proposed effort by price, or is past performance information required on all teaming partners if collectively those partners will perform 51% of the proposed effort? If teaming partners will perform less than 51% of the proposed effort (either individually or collectively), will the Government still evaluate their past performance information as part of the evaluation for the entire team? | Past performance is required on all teaming partners |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B4a, Volume III – Past Performance, states, “For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror's performance.” Is a client authorization letter required for each past performance identified in support of a Government client? | Yes |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B4f, Past Performance Questionnaire, the last sentence refers to a minimum number of questionnaires. What are the minimum and maximum numbers of questionnaires to be provided by the prime offeror and any teaming partners? | There is no min/max |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B5, Volume V Price, should be titled Volume IV Price | Noted |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B5c, Volume Organization: Please confirm that Price Schedule B is to be included in both Volume I, Tab C and in Volume IV. | it is required in both |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B5c, states, “At a minimum, the offeror shall address the items identified in paragraph (b) below.” As there are no sub-paragraph labels under 5B5c, Volume Organization, does this statement apply to the paragraph that follows immediately thereafter, concerning provision of an explanation of cost build-up in the Price Narrative Section? | yes |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B5c, Direct Labor Table, column 2 is titled “Labor Category.” However, there are no labor categories defined in the PWS. Paragraph 5.0 and its sub-paragraphs define specific tasks by location, but do not provide specific labor categories, nor do they define the education and experience requirements necessary for a candidate to qualify for each task. Will the Government provide a list of labor categories applicable to this contract, complete with required experience and education to qualify for those labor categories, and define which labor category applies to each task under PWS 5.0? | Labor categories are determined by each contractor |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B5c, Direct Labor Table, column 3, please define the meaning of the acronym “AWD Code.” | Area Wage Determination Code |
| RFP Section L, paragraph 5B5c, page 96, fourth paragraph states, “It is also the responsibility of prime contractors to ensure their subcontractor (s) pricing proposal is submitted by the closing date/time. Proposals received that do not contain complete pricing for both the prime and all subcontractor(s) may not be considered for award.” Given that a FFP contract is expected to be awarded, can an offeror submit FFP pricing based on a single labor rate per FTE that will apply to the prime contractor and all subcontractor labor, and thus eliminate the need for separate sealed pricing packages to be submitted by each subcontractor? | It is the contractors responsibility to determine how they want to submit their proposal |
| RFP Section M, Basis for Award, states, “The award will be made based on the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the three (3) factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Mission Capability Factor is more important than Past Performance Factor and Small Business Participation Plan. The Past Performance Factor is more important than Small Business Participation Plan. Small Business Participation Plan is more important than Price.” The requirement for a Small Business Participation Plan is not defined in Section L, nor is it included Section M, paragraph B, Factors and Sub-Factors to be Evaluated. Is its inclusion in Section M a typographical error, or does Section L need to be rewritten to include a Small Business Participation Plan? | This is a SB set aside |
| RFP Section M, paragraph C.2, Mission Capability Risk Rating, states, “There is no separate rating assigned to the individual tabs and no order of importance is stipulated.” However, for Volume II – Mission Capability, Section L does not define specific tabs. Should this statement regarding tabs be deleted from Section M, or will the Government please define the specific tabs for Volume II in Section L? | Tab indexing is used as a organizational tool |
| RFP Section M, paragraph C.3, provides a list of past performance areas of evaluation, which includes “Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals.” However, the Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 2), does not include any questions concerning this topic. Additionally, for most of the past performances cited by small business prime offerors, this area of evaluation is not applicable, since most small businesses with either submit past performances as a subcontractor, or as a small business prime contractor where compliance with socio-economic goals was not a contract requirement, due to such contracts having been won as small business set-asides. Will the Government delete this area of evaluation from Section M? | |
| PWS paragraph 1.13, Contractor Travel. Is OCONUS travel anticipated in performance of this contract, and if so, will passport and visa acquisition costs be a reimbursable travel expense? | Only anticipated OCONUS travel is to US states and territories, such as HI, AK and PR |
| PWS paragraph 1.16, Phase In / Phase Out Periods, states, “To minimize any decreases in productivity and to prevent possible negative impacts on additional services, the contractor shall have personnel on board, during the 30-day phase in/ phase out periods.” Will the Government please clarify what is meant by “having personnel on board?” To which personnel does this statement apply? Does this statement intend that the awarded prime contractor and subcontractors must have hired the personnel to fill the PWS tasks defined in paragraph 5.0? If so, by what date following contract award must those personnel have been hired? Will the awarded contractor be able to bill the Government for labor hours of those personnel during the phase-in period? | all personnel should be hired and begin work by contract start date |
| PWS paragraphs 5.4.3.1, 5.4.3.2, and 5.4.3.3. Will the Government confirm that the tasks described under these three sub-paragraphs are intended to be accomplished by a single FTE, defined by paragraph 5.4.3 as the ANG ISR Programming, Execution, and Systems Support Contractor? Or, do each of these sub-paragraph tasks require one FTE to perform them? | Up to vendor to determine how to complete the tasks |
| General question: Given the large number of questions about this solicitation and the number of ambiguities to be resolved, will the Government extend the due date for proposals by at least one week, to 20 June 2013, to enable offerors to prepare a proposal that responds properly to the Government’s answers to these questions? | No |
| Since this is a Firm Fixed Price proposal, and as it is the Government’s intention not to request Certified Cost or Pricing Data as it expects competition to drive the pricing (Section L, page 9), then, per FAR 15.403-3(b)(2) no additional data are necessary to determine the reasonableness of price. Further, FAR 5.404-1(a)(2) directs the government to use price analysis when certified cost or pricing data are not required. Further, the Government, in Section L, page 10, directs Prime Contractors to perform price analysis of any subcontractor proposals used in preparing the Prime’s proposal. Given this, it is suggested that the requirement for “an explanation of the method of cost build-up, including base rate, fringe rates, labor overhead rates, and all other applicable Other Indirect rates and factors (including General and Administrative ‘G&A’ rate)” and the associated table (Section L, page 9) be removed. In the alternative, please provide rationale for the cost build-up and associated table being the only means for the Government to determine the fairness and reasonableness of price per FAR 15.402 (a)(2), FAR 15.402(a)(3), FAR 15.403-3(a)(1)(ii). | The Government is leaving in the chart |
| Will the Government provide historical FTEs that have previously supported this effort? | No |
| Will the Government provide a historical FTE breakdown by geographical location previously used to support this effort? | No |
| Will the Government identify “key personnel”? | No |
| Will the Government be requiring any education/years of experience qualifications? | No |
| Can the Government provide clarification and rationale as to CLIN 0001 “requirements for 1,960 hours per person support services include:”? Specifically, why 1960 versus 1920? | Should be 1920 |
| Does the Government intend to provide a plug number for travel for evaluation purposes? If not, can the Government provide historical travel annually to assist offerors in developing their cost proposals? | 95-115 trips/year, 3-5 days in length to US states & territories |
| Can the Government confirm that a single evaluation rating will be assigned for each offeror, regardless of the number of Past Performance references submitted? | Confirmed the combined Past Performance is used to establish one past perfomance rating |
| Will Past Performance from the Prime will carry more weight during evaluation? | Combined Past Performance is used to establish one past performance rating |
| Does the Government wish to receive copies of CPARS for referenced Past Performance citations, should they be available? | No |
Are Past Performance Questionnaires required for references submitted that have CPARS?
| Past Performance Questionnairers are required for all proposals | |
| Key personnel are not identified as an evaluation factor. Are resumes |
and/or letters of commitment requested or desired? Are incumbent key personnel already committed to a qualified offeror?
| No resumes are requested at the time of proposal. We do not have this information requarding incumbent key personnel | ||
| To ensure an accurate and level price evaluation, will the Government | ||
| provide a travel estimate or a plug in number for offerors to use? | 95-115 trips/year, 3-5 days in length to US states & territories | |
| Can the Government confirm whether or not a Small Business Participation |
Plan is required since this solicitation is a Total Small Business set-
| aside? | No Small business Participation Plan is required because this is a Total Small Business Set Aside | |
| Can the Government provide the historical Level of Effort | ||
| (LOE)? | No | |
| 1.6.5 “All contractor employees and associated sub-contractor employees |
assigned to work on a government site and/or requiring access to a DoD network will be required to register with ADLS at commencement of services in order to complete the necessary training required…”
1.8 “NOTE: The Government does not provide training to contractors.
Contractors must ensure that any personnel performing under a contract are fully trained, licensed, certified and qualified to provide services.”
| These sections are in conflict. Please clarify. | The note in Paragraph 1.8 applies directly to the special qualifications listed in Para 1.8. | ||
| Reference Section L, Page 94: Specific Relevant Contracts Format - Sheets in accordance with Attachment 2 and are limited to 3 pages per reference….How many past performance reference are desired/allowed? | There is no min/max | ||
| Reference Section L, Page 94: Performance Questionnaire - See Attachment For the contracts identified on each Specific Relevant Contract Reference, the offeror shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire to the points of contact responsible for monitoring performance under such contracts...Can recent and relevant CPARS be submitted in lieu of PPQs? How will the past performance volume be rated if PPQs are not returned, but CPARS are readily available? | Provide only PPQ's | ||
| Reference Section L, Page 94: Joint Ventures...Does the Government require a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement to be submitted with the proposal? | Yes the Government requires a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement | ||
| Reference Section M, Page 98, Basis for Award states, “…Mission Capability Factor is more important than Past Performance Factor and Small Business Participation Plan. The Past Performance Factor is more important than Small Business Participation Plan. Small Business Participation Plan is more important than Price.” Should the reference to the “Small Business Participation Plan” be removed? | Yes Small business Participation Plan is not applicable | ||
| Reference Section L, Page 95, Para 5, B, 5) is titled “Volume V Price”Should this be changed to Volume IV in accordance with volume table on Page 89? | Noted | ||
| Reference Section L, Page 92, Para 5, B, 4), a., fifth sentence states, ” The offeror shall submit, along with the information required in this paragraph, a consent letter (see Attachment 1)…”Referenced Attachment 1 is a request for past performance assessment. Is there another attachment showing the required consent letter? | This is the correct letter we will review in the future the name of the letter | ||
| Reference Section L, Page 92, Para 5, B, 4), f., bullets titled “* Summary Page” and “*Specific Relevant Contracts Format” cite Attachment 2 as format guidance for three-page past performance write-ups sheets. However, Attachment 2 is the Past Performance Questionnaire. Should the past performance summaries follow the topical headings presented in the Past Performance Questionnaire, or is there another attachment for past performance summary format? | Yes you can use the questionnaire | ||
| Reference ITO: Schedule B in Volume I and Volume IV. Does the Government intend to have Schedule B in both volumes? | Schedule B and Volume IV must both be completed | ||
| The RFP states that “No G&A or other overhead shell be charged on Travel or ODC.” This directly conflicts with the guidance provided via FAR 31.2, Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) 410, and in accordance with DCMA approved accounting systems. Offeror requests that this language be removed so that allowable indirect burdens, such as G&A, can be invoiced. | The Government is not removing the language | ||
| Is there a designated Program Manager position on the contract at the primary work location at Joint Base Andrews? Or in what manner and from what location does the government desire that the PM function be performed? | There is not a designated Program Manager position on the contract. | ||
| Is this the final RFP and PWS on FBO? | YES | ||
| What is the RFP Response Format? | Reference the solicitation | ||
| What is the RFP Response Length? | Reference the solicitation | ||
| Do title page, appendixes, etc. count towards the page count? | Yes | ||
| What, if any, are the special instructions for format and submission? | Reference the solicitation | ||
| What is the anticipated award date? | 1-Oct-17 | ||
| Are there past performance criteria or requirements? If so, what are they? | Reference the solicitation | ||
| The Period of Performance (PoP) in the PWS does not match the PoP in RFP Section B. | PoP is Base Year 12 months and Four (4)-12 Month option years (6 month option to extend services) Total 66 months | ||
| PWS imbedded in the RFP does not match the separate PWS file uploaded at the FedBizOps webpage for Solicitation. Which PWS should we propose to? | The PWS in the Solicitation | ||
| The Direct Labor Table has an AWD column can we use the associated base with the position description. For examplePWS Para 5.1 Position 1 is at McConnell AFB, can we right the base name such as McConnell or are we supposed to reference something else | That is a business decision made by each offeror | ||
| The Solicitation number at the FBO website is not the same as the RFP number on the same webpage | Both numbers are tracked and acceptable |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .