Attachment 18-Questions and Answers_Responses 11MAR24.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W9133L24R1020
About this file
This federal solicitation seeks proposals for Recruit Sustainment Program Quality Control Support Services. Key details include the requirement to provide support staff at 284 National Guard sites across 54 states and territories to perform quality control inspections and administrative services. Offerors must propose pricing and staffing plans to satisfy the support hours required for small, medium, and large-sized states as categorized in the attachments. Submission requirements include technical, past performance, and price volumes due by the closing date, with past performance materials due two weeks prior. The incumbent contractor is Katmai North America, LLC under Contract No. W9133L21C1003. The estimated value is $85-95 million. Labor categories are anticipated to fall under General Clerk III or equivalent as determined by applicable Service Contract Act wage determinations.
View the file
Other files
Show all 32
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| W9133L24R1020 RSP Q&A Log Responses | ||||||||
| Question | ||||||||
| No. | Document | |||||||
| Type | Document Control No | |||||||
| (if applicable) | Section No. | Page No. | Contractor Question | Government Response | ||||
| 1 | ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS to OFFERORS | 2.b.vi | 67 | The Instructions to Offerors does not include a font style or size requirement. Would the government consider making Times New Roman 12 point the standard for proposal text and Times New Roman 10 point the standard for tables, figures, graphics, etc.? | Added instructions for font and point to the Addendum to 52.212-1 under Section 2(b)(vi). | |||
| 2 | Solicitation | 2 Proposal Files | 66 of 83 | This section states Volume III must be submitted two (2) weeks prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF 1449. We assume that if there are any future extensions of the closing date these extensions will also apply to this requirement. Is this assumption correct? | Per amendment 0001 posted on 18 January 2024, Past Performance volumes are due with the proposal. | |||
| 3 | ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS to OFFERORS | 2.c.(1).a. | 69 | This section requires offerors to address their ability to meet ALL of the requirements delineated in Attachment 11 and Attachment 08. However, Attachment 11 has several chapters that appear to be government only responsibilities (i.e., Chapter 2 Duties and Responsibilities, Chapter 3 Training and Advancement, Chapter 4 Satety, etc. ). This is also true for Attachment 08 (i.e., Chapter 2 Command Awareness and Emphasis, Chapter 5 Sponsorship Program, Chapter 7 ETS Counseling, etc.). Could the government be more specific on which chapters and paragraphs in Attachments 11 and 08 we should address? | The Government has updated 52.212-1 Section 2(c)(i)(a) . The focus should be addressed on chapter 4 of Attachment 08 and Chapters 6 and 7 of Attachment 11. | |||
| 4 | PWS | NA | 2.c.iii.(4) Past Performance Questionnaire | 73 | Regarding this excerpt from the PWS under Past Performance Questionnaire: "The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC 05 December 2023." Does the government want us to date our email 5 December 2023? Or can we use the date that we send the questionnaire to our past performance POC? | The offeror may use the date that you send the questionnaire to the past performance POC. 05 December 2023 has been removed from the Addendum to 52.212-1 under Section 2(c)(iii)(4). | ||
| 5 | Solicitation | 2 Proposal Files | 66 of 83 | This section states Volume III must be submitted two (2) weeks prior to the closing date and time identified on the SF 1449. Will the Government please consider changing this to two (2) weeks after release of the final questions and answers are released because the information provided as part of the Q&A are critical to selection of what final past performance citations are submitted? | All items relating to due dates in Volume III will follow block 8 of the SF 1449. | |||
| 6 | ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS to OFFERORS | 1.c. | 65 | This section requires offerors to address their ability to meet ALL of the requirements delineated in Attachment 11 and Attachment 08. However Attachment 11 contains approximately 35 pages of requirements and Attachment 08 contains approximately 25 pages of requirements. The total page limit for Volume I Technical Approach is 35 pages. Would the government consider increasing the number of pages for Volume I or be more specific on which chapters and paragraphs within Attachment 11 and 08 we should address? | See answer to question #3. | |||
| 7 | Attachment 12-RSP Sites Counties Wage Determination Numbers | NA | Column A and B | NA | Can the government share how many work sites in each state are not staffed by FTEs? | No, the question of Full time versus Part Time is a performance based question, subject to the approach of each offeror |
The government can provide overall there are 284 locations across the 54 states and territories.
Each state has an amount of support they have been “allocated” or "Authorized” which is provided in Attachment 7 (which has been updated for the purposes of this Amendment). The labor hours do equate to approximately 215 FTEs at the state level to accomplish RSP Quality control site work. But that does not preclude Part Time employment as an approach. Moreover, the authorized RSP Quality control site work DOES NOT include the support required for other functions covered under this contract, which is subject to the performance-based approach of each offeror.
Each state has flexibility as to where they want their support to be located physically within the state. Overall, there are 284 locations where RSP Quality Control work could occur (see Attachment 12). That said, there is a difference between where work could occur and where the support is located on a regular basis. A breakdown of the locations of the current regular physical support has now been provided in Attachment 17. However, there are instances where physical presence to successfully perform the mission will be required (like during drill weekends) for sites that have no current regular support staff on location.
Please also note:
| - | Based on the type/nature of work performed for RSP QC, those performing the work may not require to be physically present all the times at the sites where regular support staff on location exist. As such, telework is be authorized in PWS. | |||||||
| - | Sites where physical support is located (see Attachment 14) is dependent on TAG priorities and Battalion leadership preferences and may be subject to change during life of the contract, but said change is infrequent. | |||||||
| - | The use of Part Time Versus Full Time is subject to the performance-based approach of each Offeror. | |||||||
| 8 | Solicitation | 2 Proposal Files (2b, vii) | 67 of 83 | What are the font size limitations for text? | See answer to question #1 | |||
| 9 | PWS | NA | Technical Exhibit 3 | 64 | Can the government share how many total authorizations are expected to be filled with FTEs during the next contract period of performance? | See anser to question #7 | ||
| 10 | Solicitation | (iii) Volume III Past Performance | 71 of 83 | The past performance citations must be relevant is size, scope, and complexity and magnitude is approximately $85-$95M in value. Will the Government consider adjusting this requirement, as an 8a small business demonstrating this level of magnitude that is also similar is scope and complexity would only apply to current and former incumbent contractors? | The Government has changed the NAICS of this acquisition to more closely align with the requirement at the direction of the Small Business Administration, Office of Hearing s and Appeals. | |||
| 11 | Attachment 12 | Line 4 | N/A | Line 4 Column A identifies the state location as Anchorage and Column J identifies the physical address as Camp Carroll is that correct? | Yes, there is a Camp Carroll in Anchorage, AK. | |||
| 12 | Attachment 12-RSP Sites Counties Wage Determination Numbers | NA | Column A and B | NA | For those work sites not staffed by FTEs, will the government share the coverage schedule to staff these sites? | See anser to question #7 | ||
| 13 | Attachment 12 | Lines 33, 107-110, 112, 171, 227,and 270. | N/A | These lines are highlighted in red and have no Wage Determination Number listed. Will the Government please explain why? | There are currently no wage determinations listed for those locations, wage determinations will be updated if the wage determinations for those locations are published. | |||
| 14 | PWS | NA | NA | NA | Will the government share who is the incumbent and who the subcontractors are on the incumbent contract? | The incumbent is Katmai North America, LLC. And the Contract number is W9133L21C1003. The Government will not provide information regarding Katmai's subcontract information. | ||
| 15 | Attachment 12 | Column B | NA | Are any of these locations operating under a collective bargaining agreement? | No, none of these locations are under a collective bargaining agreement. | |||
| 16 | PWS | NA | Technical Exhibit 3 | 64 | Can the government share how many labor categories there are as well as duty descriptions for each? | For the state level RSP QC, the current SCA applicable Wage Determinaiotn labor category accepted is General Clerk III. The labor caterogies and duty descriptions for the remaining work will be based on the perfomance proposed by each offeror. As such, no additional information will be provided for other labor categories, as it is incumbent upon each individual contractor to determine the reamining appropriate labor mix as well as the elements of the labor categories (e.g., qualifications, certifications, education, experience, etc) . | ||
| 17 | Attachment 12 | Column B | NA | If any of these locations are operating under a collective bargaining agreement will the Government please provide a copy of the agreement/s? | See answer to question #15. | |||
| 18 | PWS | NA | 5.16 | 55 | Can the government share what the difference is between a RSP-QC Specialist, a GC III Lead, and a GC III? | RSP-QC specialist, or state specialist, work has been found to be within the bounds of the SCA Wage Determination labor category of General Clerk III. As such, RSP-QC specialist, state specialist, and GCIII are used synonomously | ||
| 19 | PWS | NA | 5.16 | 55 | Will the government provide duty descriptions along with expected qualifications for all labor categories on this contract? | See answer to questions #7, #16 and #18 | ||
| 20 | Attachment 10-RMS User Guides Combined | NA | NA | NA | Will the government provide a list of software programs being used on this contract? | The Government has provided the list of required systems/software throughout the PWS. | ||
| 21 | Attachment 12 | Line 10 Column C and D | NA | The current WD 2015-4603 date is shown as 8/4/2023 however the current document is dated 12/26/2023. Which version does the Government want us to use; if it is the older version will the Government please provide a copy of the older version because SAM.GOV does not provide access to outdated versions? | It is expected that the offeror relies on the latest wage determinations prior to the closing date of the solicitaton. The references in Attachment 12 have been removed. | |||
| 22 | Attachment 12 | Column D | NA | In many instances the WD's have been updated since the revision identified. Will the Government please provide the correct date on the WDs we are expected to use? | See answer to question #21. | |||
| 23 | Attachment 12 | Column J | N/A | Some of the physical locations are left blank; are we to assume the address in Column I is also the physical work address in these instances? | Yes, the physical location is the same as the physical work address. | |||
| 24 | Attachment 12 | Line 36 - Column J | N/A | The physical address on this line is identified as vacant; what does that mean? | See answer to question #23 | |||
| 25 | Attachment 02 | N/A | N/A | This document is marked as draft. Is there a final version available? | The Government has provided an updated version without draft watermarks with the Amendment. Please see updated Attachment 02. | |||
| 26 | Attachment 02 | Column E | N/A | This section is asking for required qualification, certifications, education, and experience. Will the Government provide the qualifications, certifications, education, and experience required for each labor category? | See answer to questions #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 27 | Attachment 02 | Column F | N/A | Will the Government provide the years of experience expected for each labor category? | See answer to questions #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 28 | Attachment 02 | Column G | N/A | Is the Government expecting us to list the labor categories and associated data for each of the 283 site locations identified in Attachment 12? | See answer to answer #7, #16 and #18. However, please be advised that if the same labor categories with same qualifications, education, etc (i.e., GCIII) is to be used across each of the 283 sites, then that can be captured with one row (even with PT or FT) by ensuring the information provided in the associated "total Hours" column captures the level of effort commensurate to the number of hours planned across all within said labor category. For example if you planned 5 FTE under one labor category (and all elements of the labor category are the same), then you would provide 5*1920= 9,600 in Colum J for that row. | |||
| 29 | Attachment 02 | Column H | N/A | Are there any site locations currently authorized for telework or remote work at the contractors facility? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 30 | Performance Work Statement | Technical Exhibit 3 | 2 | Will the Government provide a list of by name states for each size category (Small, Medium, and Large)? | Please see Attchment 12 and Attachment 17 provided with this Ammendment | |||
| 31 | Performance Work Statement | Technical Exhibit 3 | 2 | Are the Service Hours needed for the entire state or for each site? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 32 | Performance Work Statement | 1.4.15 | 49 of 83 | Is the Government stating the incoming contractor will not have a transition period to process employees and work in progress? | Correct, the Government will not provide a transistion period for this effort. However, as a significant portion of performance is SCA applicable with right of first refual, the Government expects a large piece of labor to be meet with incumbent capture. Moreover, the Government will try to award the contract prior to the end of the existing contract to allow time for staffing. The Goverment will be undertanding regarding support requirements on "day one" of the new contract within reason | |||
| 33 | Performance Work Statement | 3.2 | 50 of 83 | Will the Government be providing office materials like paper, printer ink, etc.? | Yes. Please refer to PWS Section 3.1 Property: The Government will furnish the necessary workspace for the contractor to perform services outlined in this PWS to include desk space, telephones, computers and other items necessary to maintain an office environment. | |||
| 34 | Performance Work Statement | 5.14 | 55 of 83 | This section identifies the RSP Weekly Conference Call. Will the Government please clarify "Contractors shall attend Quarterly RSP All 54 Teleconference events"? | The weekly conference call is not the same as the All 54 Teleconference. The all 54 call occurs once per quarter and all contractors attend these events either virtually (most) or in person. | |||
| 35 | Performance Work Statement | 5.14 | 55 of 83 | Which contractor labor categories or positions are required to attend these calls? | All contractor personnel are required to attend these calls. | |||
| 36 | Performance Work Statement | 5.15 | 55 of 83 | Are these meeting conducted physically on-site or can they be executed via on-line teleconferencing? | See answer to question #34 | |||
| 37 | Performance Work Statement | 5.15 | 55 of 83 | Which contractor labor categories or positions are required to attend these calls? | See answer to question #35 | |||
| 38 | Performance Work Statement | 5.16 | 55 of 83 | Which contractor labor categories or positions does the Government consider as key? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 39 | Performance Work Statement | 5.16 | 55 of 83 | This section is the only time the "Contractor RSP State Specialist" is mentioned. There appears to be no specific requirements for this position in Section 5.0. Will the Government please define the requirements for this position? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 40 | Performance Work Statement | Technical Exhibit3 | 63 of 83 | This section identifies 5.17 RSP Contract Roster. Should this be 5.16? | Technical Exhibit 2 should list the deliverable for the RSP Contact Roster under PWS Section 5.16. Technical Exhibit 2 of the PWS has been corrected. | |||
| 41 | Attachment 7 | Enclosure 1 | 5 | The Strength Report varies from that in Technical Exhibit 3 of the solicitation (page 64), where it states, "the current contract used the below calculations to arrive at the number of hours / FTEs for the number of RSP-QC Specialists..." Using the calculation in TE 3, Small States require 2 FTEs, Medium States 4 FTEs, and Large States 7 FTEs. This enclosure shows different FTE levels than the solicitation. Some states have a lower authorized strength (CT, MD, and KS are 'M' but have FTEs that align with 'S'). This disparity creates an information asymmetry and an unfair advantage for the incumbent. Will the Government clarify the FTE counts ( Level of Effort) requested for each state or Government confirm it is satisfied with the current LOE provided in Attachment 07? | We have removed TE 3 from the PWS. We have updated Attachmnet 7 and added Attachment 17 with Amenedment 0001. The Government feels these updates reduces the disparity within the information provided. | |||
| 42 | Solicitation | 2. Proposal Files, b. File Packaging | 65 of 66 | The solicitation requires Vol III Past Performance to be submitted two (2) weeks prior to the closing date and time; however, the rest of the solicitation references PPQs and does not specify when PPQs are due. |
Given that Government clients are extremely busy, it is difficult to guarantee they can respond to PPQ requests two weeks prior to the due date.
| Will Government accept PPQs that arrive by the closing date, and not two weeks prior with Vol III Past Performance? | See answer to question #2 | ||||||
| 43 | Solicitation | 2. Proposal Files, b. File Packaging | 65 of 66 | Will the Government accept CPARS documents in lieu of PPQs? | Yes. The Government will accept CPARs in lieu of PPQs. The solicitation has been updated to reflect as such | ||
| 44 | Solicitation /Attachment 07 | Solicitation 1.2 / Enclosure 1 | pg 39 (solicitation), pg 5 (Attachment 07) | The PWS in Section 1.2 (and in other areas) references this program supporting 54 states, territories, and DC. |
Attachment 07 does not show any FTEs aligned to the Virgin Islands.
| Can Government clarify if support services are needed there, and if so whether they should be provided in-person or remotely from another location? | The Contract does support the 54 states, territories, and DC. Support for the Virgin Islands is provided by Florida. | |||||||
| 45 | ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS to OFFERORS | 2.c.(1).a. | 69 | This section requires offerors to address their ability to meet ALL of the requirements delineated in Attachment 11 and Attachment 08. However, Attachment 11 has several chapters that appear to be government only responsibilities (i.e., Chapter 2 Duties and Responsibilities, Chapter 3 Training and Advancement, Chapter 4 Safety, etc. ). This is also true for Attachment 08 (i.e., Chapter 2 Command Awareness and Emphasis, Chapter 5 Sponsorship Program, Chapter 7 ETS Counseling, etc.). Could the government be more specific on which chapters and paragraphs in Attachments 11 and 08 we should address? | See answer to question #3 | |||
| 46 | PWS | NAC39:C47 | 1.4.9 | 47 | Does the Contract Manager called out in the PWS function as the Program Manager? | It can be, but that is subject to the performance based approach of each Contractor. The Government is specifically concerned that the the Contracts manager, or other labor category with the repsonsibilities listed in the contract manager paragraph is clearly delineated/identified | ||
| 47 | PWS | 2.c.iii.(4) Past Performance Questionnaire | 73 | Should we use 05 December 2023 as the date we submit the past performance questionnaire to the POC? | See answer to question #4 | |||
| 48 | Attachment 12-RSP Sites Counties Wage Determination Numbers | Column A and B | NA | Will the government share how many work sites in each state are not staffed by FTEs? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 49 | PWS | Technical Exhibit 3 | 64 | Will the government share how many total authorizations are expected to be filled with FTEs during the next contract period of performance? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 50 | PWS | Technical Exhibit 3 | 64 | Will the government share how many labor categories there are as well as duty descriptions for each? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 51 | PWS | 5.16 | 55 | Will the government share what the difference is between a RSP-QC Specialist, a GC III Lead, and a GC III? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 52 | Attachment 12 | N/A | N/A | Are we required to have a staff member on-site at all 283 locations? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 53 | Attachment 12 | N/A | N/A | Which locations require us to have a staff member onsite site full-time? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 54 | Attachment 12 and Attachment 7 | Enclosure 1 Attachment 7 | N/A | Attachment 7 shows 13 GCIII assigned to the State of Texas. Attachment 12 shows 15 separate sites in Texas. Will the Government please confirm which sites in Attachment 12 require an on-site staff member? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 55 | Solicitation | 2, Proposal Files (iii) (1) (a) | 72 of 83 | Is the Government asking for our previous DUNS Number or our current UEI Number? | The Government is requesting your current UEI Number. The reference to the DUNS has been removed from the Addendum to 52.212-1 Section 2(iii)(1)(a). | |||
| 56 | Solicitation | 2, Proposal Files (iii) (1) (e) | 72 of 83 | Will the Government please define what they mean by a "Pre-award Monitor? | Pre-Award montior reference as been removed from solicitation | |||
| 57 | Solicitation | 2, Proposal Files (iii) (1) (g) | 72 of 83 | Did the Government mean "Indefinite" Quantity or "Definite" Quantity? | The government provided multiple examples withint he parenthesis refering to Indefinite Delivery type. No update is required as both Definite and Indefinite Quantity are both provided as examples | |||
| 58 | Solicitation | 2, Proposal Files (iii) (4) | 72 of 83 | Will the Government accept CPARS documents instead of PPQs? | See answer to question #43 | |||
| 59 | Solicitation | 2, Proposal Files (ii) (4) | 69 of 83 | With 11 federal holidays the standard FTE is now 1912 or 1872 hours per year. Did the Government intend for this section to read as "not less than 1872 hours for a Full Time Equivalent"? | The solicitation has been updated at the Addendum to 52.212-1 Volume II to reflect that offerors shall use not less than 1,872 hours for a non-SCA covered Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee and not less than 1,856 hours for an SCA covered FTE within their proposal. | |||
| 60 | Statement of Work | 1.4.15 | 49 of 83 | This indicates Phase In and Phase Out are not applicable. Is the Government expecting us to start work supporting 54 locations with 100s of people on day-one with no phase-in period? | See answer to question #32 | |||
| 61 | Draft RFP | 1.2 | 30 | The Draft RFP states an estimated 280 RSP sites, can the government clarify how many RSP sites the contractor will be responsible for staffing? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 62 | MS Excel Spreadsheet | Attachment 02-RSP Staffing Table-25OCT23 | Staffing Table | Volume II instructions request that we do not make any changes other than entries. However, the file has the word "DRAFT" superimposed as a watermark. Are we allowed to remove the "DRAFT" indicator or will you provide an updated attachment? | See answer to question #25 | |||
| 63 | MS Excel Spreadsheet | Attachment 02-RSP Staffing Table-25OCT24 | Labor/PWS Cross Reference Tab | The Labor/PWS Cross Reference Tab called out in the Volume II instructions is missing from attachment. Are we to create a Crosswalk tab or will you provide an updated attachment? | See Column I in Attachment #2. | |||
| 64 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf |
tc={0CEF6E9D-0697-4AC2-9659-3A756812BC0B}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
Sir, these questions are from the draft Solicitation, do we want to include these?
Reply:
@Downes, Glenn W IV CPT USARMY NG NGB (USA) Yes. But anything that has been updated because of the final state "This information has been updated in the final Solicitation. Offerors should follow the latest information provided by the Government."
| SF1449 and 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors | 1 and 14 | The SF1449 provides a NAICS Code of 561110 - Office Administrative Services. However, 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors discusses NAICS Code 541519. Would the Government please clarify which NAICS Code will be used? | See answer to question #10 | ||||
| 65 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section2.b | 56 | This paragraph states that all proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format (i.e., docx, xlsx, pptx, etc.), and provided on CDs or DVDs. If CDs or DVDs are required, please provide the address to which they should be sent. | Addendum 52.212-1 has been updated to request electronic submission only. | |
| 66 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 2.b | 56 | This paragraph requires files to be supplied in their native format (i.e., docx, xlsx, pptx, etc.) and later requires files to be provided in read-only format, using PDF files. Would the government please clarify if documents should be provided in their native format or in PDF format? | This was updated in the released version to read: Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel. | |
| 67 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 2.b.i | 56 | The government provides a format in which it would like to receive information regarding any exception to solicitation requirements. If an offeror has an exception, in which volume of the proposal should it include the exception table in the format requested? | The Addendum to 52.212-1 has been updated to specify that any exceptions to the Solicitation be submitted in Volume V. | |
| 68 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | 1.4.5.14 | 37 | Why is this a requirement if this is not a "Secret" level contract? | This requirement applie to a contractor who may carry a Security Clearance, a security clearance is not a requirement of the contract. | |
| 69 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | 1.4.12 | 38-39 | Is COR recommendation for approval and authorization suffice, or does travel have to have KO approval as well? | No, the solicitation provides only COR approval and/or authorzation | |
| 70 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | 5.1 | 42 | If a Trouble Ticket for a document pulled from Vulcan is not generated, how will the gov't account for the time the LNCO spends with this effort in support of Warrior care, and data generated for manpower studies? | The LNCO is a Government employee and the Government would not penalize the Contractor for a Government delay. | |
| 71 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | 5.8.2 / 5.8.3 / 5.8.4 | 44 | Does the gov't still require the contractor to email the roster to the COR and Recruiting Operations Branch (ROB) to get approval prior to pulling the training seat as this would be an unnecessary step that would cause the loss or valued training seats? | The Government retains the overall responsibility and authority for managing training seats. This note has been added to the PWS at 5.8.2. | |
| 72 | Solicitation Draft | 24R1020 Solicitation Draft 20221026v2.pdf | Technical Exhibit 1 / 5.1.1 | 49 | How does the COR utilize DPRO to calculate this requirement? | The COR is provided with a Monthly report by Contract personnel. This DPRO derived report shows that the AQL is met, see attachment 15 and 16. The requirement has been updated in the PRS. | |
| 73 | General Question | Section L & M | Will the Government please clarify if an Alaska Native Corporation’s use of prior experience and/or past performance from an affiliated company will or will not be allowed? |
| PLEASE NOTE: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) permits Alaska Native Corporations to claim all the experience and work history of its affiliated corporations for the purposes of establishing performance capability in the context of a competitive acquisition. Reference: Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196, February 6, 2014; Ecompex, Inc., B-292865.4, B-292865.5, B-292865.6, June 18, 2004 (see page 5); Serco, Inc., B 406683, B-406683.2, Aug. 3, 2012; AMI-ACEPEX, Joint Venture, B-401560, Sept. 30, 2009. Specifically, GAO has ruled that an ANC bidding on a government contract may rely on the past performance of an affiliated company when the proposal makes it clear that the resources associated with the affiliated company will have meaningful involvement in the execution of the present contract. | Yes. Per the cited information, offerors may use past performance of an ANC so long as "the proposal makes it clear that the resources associated with the affiliated company will have meaningful involvement in the execution of the present contract." | |||||||
| 74 | Solicitation | File Packaging Instructions | 65 of 83 | Per the solicitation submission requirement it states to submit proposal via DoD SAFE. However, we were redirected from DoD SAFE to Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) website. Should we submit this opportunity via PIEE? | Refer to the updated File Packaging instructions in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. | |||
| 75 | RFP | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | Volume III - Past Performance | 71 | The NAICS for the procurement is 561110 - Office Administrative Services which is limited to $12.5 million. This is a very limiting NAICS given the magnitude. Per the RFP, “Magnitude for the RSP effort is approximately $85-$95M in value.” |
| Would the government consider NAICS 541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services? This NAICS and size standard of $24.5 M is more appropriate to the size and scope. | See answer to questions #10 | ||||||
| 76 | RFP | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | Volume III - Past Performance | 71 | "Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) recent and relevant past performance examples of Government and/or commercial Contracts or Orders for the prime offeror. Offerors may utilize the past performance of a major subcontractor for one (1) of the 3 past performance examples." |
We would request the following modification to offer a bidding team more flexbility to demonstrate the team-wide experience.
| "Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) recent and relevant past performance examples of Government and/or commercial Contracts or Orders for the prime offeror. The Prime Offeror shall submit at least one (1) of the past performance examples. Offerors may utilize the past performance of a major subcontractor for one (1) or more of the 3 past performance example from each major subcontractor." | After reviewing the proposed information, the past performance examples remain unchanged. | |||||||
| 77 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Would the government consider releasing this on GSA OASIS 8a SB SubPool 1? | No, this requirement is not suitable for OASIS SB Pool #1 based on the OASIS ordering guide. | ||
| 78 | RFP | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | Volume III - Past Performance | Would the government provide the relative evaluation scores percentage weightings for past performance compared to technical and staffing plan? | The Government is not using relative evaluation score percentage weightings. This is a subjective tradeoff per FAR Part 15. | |||
| 79 | RFP | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | Volume III - Past Performance | 73 | We request that the government allow the submission of CPARS in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires. | See answer to Question #43 | ||
| 80 | RSP Price Model (spreadsheet) | W9133L24R1020 - RSP Price Model (spreadsheet) | Tab: I.a.1 - Final Pricing | Please clarify if there is a need for a contract access fee when the procurement is not being conducted via any GWAC or Schedule. | ||||
| “Note 4: Contract Access Fee (CAF) is 0.1%” | Attachment 13 has been updated to remove Note 4 | |||||||
| 81 | RFP and RSP Price Model (spreadsheet) | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | VOLUME IV – PRICE | 75 | Per instructions for the VOLUME IV – PRICE |
“(4) Prices shall be rounded to the nearest dollar in calculation.”
| Would this rounding be required for the Tab 1 (I.a.1 - Final Pricing) monthly data in Column G or as already implemented in the rounding function within Column H? | The rounding function in Column H is sufficient. The Solicitation has been updated accordingly. | |||||||
| 82 | RFP | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | VOLUME III – Past Performance | 74 | Per Section (5) Submissions, "Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above." Per privity of contract, a subcontractor on a US Government contract cannot engage with the end client government client POCs. Therefore we request that the government remove this requirement and allow bidders to include the prime contractor POC information. | This reference has been removed. | ||
| 83 | RFP | W9133L24R1020+RSP+Support+Services+Solicitation+20240109 | VOLUME III – Past Performance | 74 | "Volume IV Past Performance shall be submitted two (2) weeks prior to the closing date and time identified on the Standard Form 33 in sam.gov. Untimely submitted proposals will be addressed pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.208." |
| Volume IV would be due this coming Monday, January 22nd, which is likely before any questions relevant to this volume will be answered. Would the government be willing to change this to have them both due on the 5th or later? | See answer to question #2 | |||||||
| 84 | W9133L24R1020 RSP Support Services Solicitation 20240109 | N/A | (iii) VOLUME III – Past Performance | 71 of 83 Section | We understand the contract value is going to be within the $85-$95M price range however any small business that has a contract within that price range is going to be sized out for that NAICS code 561110 including the incumbent contractor. Would the Government consider reviewing the NAICS Code and revising magnitude requirements to align with SBA Standards for a small business. Since Magnitude is a core evaluation factor | See answer to question #10 | ||
| 85 | Excel Spreadsheet | Attachment 12 | N/A | N/A | There appears to be a descrepancy between the personnel totals on the RSP site spreadsheet and the sample monthly report (Attachment 07). On page 5 of attachment 07, the total personnel authorized at the state level is 215, however, the site breakdown is for 284 separate sites. for pricing purposes, is the government requesting the awardee to staff all 284 sites or utilizing certain individuals to handle multiple sites? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | ||
| 86 | W9133L24R1020 RSP Support Services Solicitation 20240109 | N/A | (iii)(4) Past Performance Questionaire | 73 of 83 | The date for submission of the POC list was stated to be 5 Dec 2023. This is prior to the release date of the solicitation, Would the government reconsider and revise the submission date for the POC list? | See answer to question #4 | ||
| 87 | W9133L24R1020 RSP Support Services Solicitation 20240109 | N/A | 1. Proposal Submission Requirements | 65 of 83 | Questions are required to be submitted NLT 18 Jan 2023. Making the assumption that ihis is a typo, the past performance volume is due to be submitted NLT 2 weeks prior to the closing date (22 Jan). Would the government consider revising the past performance submission date to allow for questions relating to past performance to be answered and reviewed by offerors? | See answer to question #2 | ||
| 88 | Attachment 14 GFP List | N/A | N/A | Per attachment 14, the government has on hand 214 laptop computers for use by the RSP contractors. If the personnel count should equal the number of RSP locations(284) plus the number of required personel serving at the various basic training sites (4) and any additional personnel above state level, will the government provide the necessary GFP for all, or will this need to be provided by the awardee? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 89 | W9133L24R1020 RSP Support Services Solicitation 20240109 | N/A | (iii) VOLUME III – Past Performance | 71 of 83 Section | We understand the contract value is going to be within the $85-$95M price range however any small business that has a contract within that price range is going to be sized out for that NAICS code 561110 including the incumbent contractor. Would the Government consider reviewing the NAICS Code and revising magnitude requirements to align with SBA Standards for a small business. Since Magnitue is a core evaluation factor | See answer to question #10 | ||
| 90 | Performance Work Statement | 1.4.1 | 40 | 1.4.1 states performance shall be at the designated RSP sites. Do all sites in attachment 12 require support, including non-drilling (column H) sites? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 91 | Attachment 12 | Line 256, Column I | NA | Please provide the city, state and zip code for RSP site on line 256 . | 6020 Parker Blvd #140, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 is now listed in Attachment 12. | |||
| 92 | Performance Work Statement | Technical Exhibit 3 | 64 | Would the government please provide which states are categorized as small, medium, and large? | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 93 | Performance Work Statement | Technical Exhibit 3 | 64 | The current service hours required, as well as level of effort in the monthly status report do not match the level of effort portrayed on Attachment 12 RSP sites. Please provide a detailed work breakdown structure and alignment of staff to RSP sites. | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 94 | Instructions to Offerors | iii Volume III Past Performance | 71 | Given the magnitude of the RSP effort, and importance of vendors' ability to fully demonstrate their experiences and capabilities, please extend recency of past performance to 6 years from the RFP issue date. | No, the Government has reviewed this information and the past performance information remains unchanged. | |||
| 95 | Attachment 7 | Enclosure 2 | NA | Please provide the work locations for the 22 Management and Support positions. | National management and support individuals have no specified duty location. | |||
| 96 | Instructions to Offerors | ii Volume II Staffing Plan | 69 | Is the government open to alternative staffing plans that deviate from the existing structure while satisfying all requirements? | yes, the govenremnt is open to all solutions that can successfully perform the requirement as this is a performance based acquisition | |||
| 97 | Solicitation | 0001-Conformed | 2.b Proposal Fies, File Packaging | 65-66 | Proposal delivery is required through DoD SAFE. How / when will contractors received access to submit files in the DOD SAFE system? | See answer to question #74 | ||
| 98 | Attachment 13 - Price Model | TAB 2.f - Rate Buildup | The Solicitation is Firm Fixed Price Labor; Why is the government requiring bidders to disclose Base Salary Rates and Fully Burdened Rates (i.e. Contractor Wrap Rates)? | The information is required for the establishment of a baseline for any price adjustment as a result of SCA wage increases in the future | ||||
| 99 | Solicitation | 0001-Conformed | (V) Volume V, Item 5 | 75 | Volume V instructions are requesting a Letter from the Local SBA office providing current eligibility as an 8(a) offeror. Would documentation from the SBA 8a Contractor website be sufficient? | A letter is required from the SBA in accordnace with the Solicitation. | ||
| 100 | Solicitation | 0001-Conformed | (V) Volume V, Item % | 75 | Volume V instructions are requesting a Letter from the Local SBA office providing current eligibility as an 8(a) offeror. Would recent documentation from the SBA recertifying the offeror as an 8(a) be sufficient or is a letter specific to this solicitation required? | Yes, recent documentation from the SBA recertifying eligibility as an 8(a) is sufficient. | ||
| 101 | Solicitation | 0001-Conformed | (iv) Volume IV - PRICE | 74-75 | Is a Price Narrative permitted in addition to the Price Model? | Yes. See the page limits for Addendum to 52.212-1 1(c) for page limits. Offerors are allowed to provide information supporting their pricing. | ||
| 102 | Attachment 13 - Price Model | TAB 2.f - Rate Buildup | Where would the Offeror designate SCA applicable Labor Categories | Offerors shall designate this within the rate build up pricing spreadsheet. | ||||
| 103 | Solicitation | 0001-Conformed | Clauses | 12 - 39 | FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), is not included in the Clauses applicable to this solicitation. Is the intention that SCA Labor Categories subject to Wage Determination adjustments not be included in the proposal response? | Clause 52.222-43 is included within FAR Clause 52.212-5 and was included in the final posting of the solicitation on 09 January 2024. | ||
| 104 | Base Solicitation | 2.b.File Packaging | 66 of 83 | Will the Government consider an alternative method of proposal submission? The first warning on the DoD SAFE website states: "DoD SAFE is NOT to be used for contract solicitation or proposal submission. Use the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) for time-sensitive submissions." (Https://safe.apps.mil). | See answer to question #74 | |||
| 106 | Base Solicitation | 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES (MAY 2014) | 24 of 83 | Based upon the previous RSP contracts, we expect most of the staff for this recompete opportunity to be in SCA Wage Determined positions. Please advise. | See answer to question #7, #16 and #18 | |||
| 107 | Base Solicitation | ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS to OFFERORS-VOLUME IV Price | 74 of 83 | For SCA Wage Determined positions can escalation be proposed for the out years or will we be required to just submit annual REAs for any increases in WD rates and H&W increases? | Offerors shall propose in accordance with the updated WD rates. During the performance of the contract, the Government will comply with FAR Clause 52.222-43. | |||
| 108 | Attachment 14 | GFP Attachment | How will Laptops be transferred at contract start? | Each State will handle the transfer of property across the RSP Sites. | ||||
| 109 | Attachment 14 | GFP Attachment | Will the Laptops require additional internet connectivity? | There is no contractual requirement to provide additional internet connectivity. The Government will provide a hardwired connection at each location. | ||||
| 110 | Attachment 14 | GFP Attachment | Do GFE Laptops have Wireless capability and CAC readers? | Yes, GFE is configured in accordance with Army requirements. | ||||
| 111 | Base Solicitation | ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS to OFFERORS-VOLUME V | 75 of 83 | For VETS 4212 documentation could the online printout be submitted in lieu of the email confirmation? | Yes, the Government will accept an online printout in lieu of the email confirmation. | |||
| 112 | Base Solicitation | Volume III, Past Performance, (4) Past Performance Questionnaire | 73 of 83 | For attachment 3, RFP states "e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract." Does this mean to email a separate PPQ to the Government contracting agency and the COTR and is a PPQ response required from the contracting activity and the COTR for each past performance? | Only one PPQ response is requested. How it emails it to the POC It is up to the offeror. The offeror may send individual emails or one email to multiple recipients. It is recommended to send one email to multiple recipients. The Government is not interested inmultiple people completing the document, but rather this is to make sure that the task is handled in the event that someone is out of the office or has changed positions. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .