Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JULY 23, 2008 FBO #2431
SOLICITATION NOTICE

R -- Biometrics Operations and Support Services - Unrestricted (BOSS-U) Draft RFP Questions and Responses Part 2

Notice Date

7/21/2008
 

Notice Type

Modification/Amendment
 

NAICS

541611 — Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
 

Contracting Office

ACA, ITEC4, Directorate of Contracting , 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0700
 

ZIP Code

22331-0700
 

Solicitation Number

W91QUZ-08-R-0032
 

Response Due

8/18/2008
 

Archive Date

10/17/2008
 

Point of Contact

William L. Giles, 703-325-5770
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

Questions and Responses 38 to 80 Question: 38 Page(s): 79, 84 Para.L.1.d, L.2.2.4.2 The Volume 2 page limitations shown on Page 79 do not appear to allow for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as required in Volume 2 per Page 84. Will the Government add pages to the Volume 2 page limitation to allow for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, or should offerors include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume 3? Response: A page requirement for the Small Subcontracting Plan has been incorporated into L.1 of the RFP and will be part of the Volume 2 submission requirement. Question: 39 Page(s) : 78, 91 Para.L.2.2.4, M.4.4 Section K establishes the NAICS code for this acquisition as 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services with a small business size standard of $6.5M. This code would seem more appropriate to the Functional Categories in the BOSS-R acquisition. The Functional Categories in BOSS-U appear to be more closely related to the engineering and R&D activities described in NAICS 541330, Engineering Services (Military Equipment) with a small business size standard of $25M.. " Will the government change the NAICS code to one that reflects the technical nature of the Functional Categories in the BOSS-U Performance Work Statement? " Does this NAICS code establish the small business size standard for subcontractors to qualify as small businesses per the references in Section L and Section M? " Are all subcontractors required to have the NAICS 541611 or is it only the Prime that must meet this requirement? Response: The NAICS code isnt going to change. I have been advised by our Small Business Specialist that subs work would be counted toward the 25% goal even if sub does not have NAICS 541611. Question: 40 Page: 79 Para.L.1 There are no references to a contract master schedule in Section L.2 or Section M. Normally there is not a Contract Master Schedule (CMS) associated with an IDIQ contract. A) Are we correct in assuming that a CMS is not required for the IDIQ contract? B) If the Government requires a CMS in the master IDIQ contract, please define what is to be in the CMS and in which section it is to be included. Response: A CMS is not required for the ID/IQ master contract. The reference has been removed. Question: 41 Page: 79 Para.L.1 Is the response to the Sample TOs included in the Part 1 Technical Approach (50) page count? Response: Sample Task Orders have been removed. The RFP has been modified to address the Technical Approach to meeting the six functional areas. Question: 42 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.a If used, do foldouts count as one page or two? Response: Foldout language in L.1.3.a has been changed to read foldouts will count as two pages. Question: 43 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.c L.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. Paragraph 3) c). Please elaborate on the requirement page counts are applicable to proposals in each functional category. Response: Language has been removed from L.1.3.c of the RFP. Question: 44 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d Please clarify whether the responses to sample task orders are included in the page count for Part 1-Technical Approach. If so, please consider exempting the sample PWS responses from the page limitation or increasing the page limitation. Response: Sample task orders have been removed from the RFP. Question: 45 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d Please consider increasing the page count for Part 2, Management Approach. The instructions require offerors to address eight crucial management activities, meaning offerors have, on average, less than two pages per topic. While the instructions for each topic imply that offerors should provide a detailed response (e.g., The offeror shall provide a QCP that details how the offeror intends to monitor, inspect, and correct deficiencies&), the page limitation will precludes more than a superficial response. At a minimum, we suggest that you exempt the QCP from the 15-page limit. Response: The Part 2 Management Approach page limit has been increased to 25 pages in the RFP. The Management Approach language has been changed. Question: 46 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d The Proposal Content table on page 79 limits Part 3, Past Performance, to a maximum number of only five pages. Does this five-page limit apply to each past performance reference submitted, or to all past performance references combined? Response: Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d Question: 47 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d L.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. Paragraph 3)d) Proposal Content. Reference the page limit for Past Performance (5 Pages). Question - Would the Government entertain raising the current maximum to a number higher than five? Existing page allocation of 5 pages will not allow sufficient length for response to demonstrate experience and qualifications for a submission of this complexity and scope. We suggest a maximum of 5 examples for a maximum of 15 pages. Response: Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d Question: 48 Page: 79 Para.L.1.3.d L.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. Paragraph 3)d) Proposal Content. Reference the page limit for Technical Approach (50 Pages) Question - Would the Government provide additional guidance on the length and structure of the two Sample Task submissions within the Technical Approach section? Response: The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP Question: 49 Page(s): 79, 80 Para.L.1.3.d, L.2.2.1 The Sample Task Order responses are required as part of the offerors Part 1 Technical Response proposal section. The Proposal Content table does not provide a specific page limit for these responses. Will the government provide a separate page limit for each Sample Task Order response as part of Attachments J8 and J9 in addition to the 50 pages permitted for this section? Response: The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP Question: 50 Page: 79, 81 Para.L.1.3.d L.2.2.3.1 Please eliminate the page limit for Part 3, Past Performance. The Government has no way of knowing whether a given offeror will need 5 or 50 pages to provide the information it has requested. Response: Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d Question: 51 Page(s): 79, 82 Para.L.1.d, L.2.2.3 The proposal content table shown on page 79 of the draft RFP shows that the maximum number of pages allowed for Part 3 Past Performance is 5. Please clarify in the final RFP whether the 5 pages are allowed for each individual contractual past performance presented in the proposal or the total number of pages allowed for Volume 2, Part 3 Past Performance. Inasmuch as paragraph L.2.2.3 (3), page 82 requires past performance information, for any proposed subcontractor who will perform a significant portion of the effort, this offeror assumes that 5 pages are allowed for each individual contractual past performance described in the proposal. Please clarify in the final RFP. Response: Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d Question: 52 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1 The lead paragraph in this section says that Volume 1 will consist of three parts but identifies only two parts. Please clarify or correct. Response: There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected. Question: 53 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1 Only two parts are specified. Please clarify the third part. Response: There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected. Question: 54 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1 A. RFP Indicates: L.2.1 states, This Volume shall consist of three parts, the Executive Summary and a Cross Reference Matrix as detailed below. Neither Part 1 nor 2 will be evaluated and no additional credit will be given. B. Constructive Comment: To maintain better alignment with the subsequently named paragraphs, suggest changing the text to indicate two parts instead of three. Response: There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected. Question: 55 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1 L.2.1 states that volume 1 will consist of three parts, but only two parts are identified. Please clarify. Response: There are only two parts to the volume. The RFP has been corrected. Question: 56 Page: 80 Para.L.2.1.2, L.2.2.1 Paragraph L.2.1.2 states, Sample Task Orders will be used to evaluate the offerors competency in PWS areas Operations and Maintenance and Program Management Support. Paragraph L.2.2.1 states, The Offeror shall provide a complete and detailed description of its approach to the contract PWS functional areas Advanced Technology Demonstration, Infrastructure Procurement Design, Development, & Integration, Advanced Technology Demonstration, Studies and Analysis, Test and Evaluation, and Sample Task Order PWSs. The referenced paragraphs appear to indicate that the government does not want offerors to address Operations and Maintenance or Program Management Support in Part 1 of the Technical Proposal except as required to respond to the Sample Task Orders, which will be provided as attachments J8 and J9 in the final RFP release. Is this correct? It also appears that the reference to Program Management Support in L.2.1.2 correlates to Functional Category 1, Management Support. Services. Is this correct? If these assumptions are correct, paragraph 2.2.1 should then read as follows, The Offer Response: The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP Question: 57 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Section L contains two subsections labeled L.2.2.1. Please clarify. Response: Section L has been correct to change duplicate subsection L.2.2.1. Question: 58 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Please confirm that responses to Sample Task Order PWSs are included in the 50-page limit for Part 1, Technical Approach. Response: Sample task orders have been removed from the RFP. Question: 59 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Will the sample Task Order PWSs referenced in this section be released in draft form prior to the issuance of the final RFP? Response: No, the requirement for offerors to respond to a sample task order has been removed from the RFP. Question: 60 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Please clarify the meaning of this paragraph. The list of PWS functional areas is incomplete and the Advance Technology Demonstration functional area is duplicated. Does this imply that the areas not included in the list, Functional Area 1: Management Support Services and Functional Area 3: Operations and Maintenance do no require a description of approach but only the response to the sample task orders? Response: The RFP has been revised to reference the six functional areas. Question: 61 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Functional areas Operations and Maintenance and Management Support Services are not addressed in L.2.2.1. Are we correct in assuming all functional areas should be addressed in L.2.2.1, per M.2 and C.1.2? Response: Sample task orders have been removed. The RFP has been modified to reflect all functional areas. Question: 62 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 In Paragraphs L.2.2.1, Advanced Technology Demonstration is listed twice. Suggest removing the duplicate entry of Advanced Technology Demonstration in Paragraph L.2.2.1. Response: Correction has been made to Section L.2.2.1. Question: 63 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 The first Paragraph L.2.2.1 lists the contents of the Technical Approach; including selected PWS functional areas. However, Functional Category 1 (Management Support Services) and Functional Category 3 (Operations and Maintenance) are not listed as part of the Technical Approach, even though they are listed as Technical evaluation factors as part of M.2(b)(1)(a) and M.2(b)(1)(d), respectively. Suggest modifying the first Paragraph L.2.2.1 to provide better alignment with Section M. Response: Sample task orders have been removed. The RFP has been modified to reflect all functional areas. Question: 64 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 The paragraph number for Paragraph L.2.2.1 appears twice in the Draft RFP. The first time it is identified as Part 1 Technical Approach. In the following paragraph, it is identified as Part 2 Management Approach. Suggest re-numbering the second paragraph titled Part 2 Management Approach as L.2.2.2. Response: Correction to Section L has been made. Question: 65 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Paragraphs L.2.2.1 refers to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, and Integration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 refer to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, Implementation, and Integration. Suggest that the language in Paragraph L.2.2.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Changes have been made to correct Section L.2.2.1. Question: 66 Page(s): 80, 89 Para.L.2.2.1, M.4.1 It is this offerors understanding that the response to sample task orders (J-8 and J-9) is not part of the 50 page limit for Part 1-Technical Approach, and there is no page limit for response to sample task orders. Please confirm. Response: The sample task orders have been removed from the RFP. Question: 67 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1 Paragraph L.2.2.1 refers to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Demonstration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 refer to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Analysis and Demonstration. Suggest that the language in Paragraph L.2.2.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Changes have been made to correct Section L.2.2.1. Question: 68 Page: 80 Para.L.2.2.1.b A) Is the Government requesting resumes for Technical Key Personnel for the IDIQ master contract and the percentage of time assigned to the master contract? B) Are the key technical personnel related only to the Sample TOs? Please clarify. Response: With the exception of the Program Manager, key personnel will only be addressed at the task order level. Sample task orders have been removed. Question: 69 Page: 81 Para.L.2.2.3 Offerors are required to submit their own past performance, and also past performance for subcontractors who will perform a significant portion of the effort. RFP Page 5 indicates a 5 page limit for the past performance section of Volume 2. We respectfully suggest that 5 pages are not enough to provide the requested information for the prime and potentially multiple subs. Does the Government intend to increase the page limit for this section of Volume 2? Response: Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d Question: 70 Page: 81 Para.L2.2.3 The first paragraph of this section defines relevant as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in Section C of the solicitation. We note, however, that several of the Tasks described in Section C make no mention of biometrics. We suggest that the definition of relevant be revised to say work that involves products/technology that relates to the mission of the BTF and that is similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in Section C of the solicitation. Response: Section L.2.2.3 has been modified to read, Relevancy is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in Section C of the solicitation and has been performed for a minimum of (twelve) 12 months. Question: 71 Page: 81 Para.L2.2.3 Since the RFP has been modified to include the AMS process, please clarify whether offerors are to submit contract descriptions at both the pre-qualification step and in their offers. Response: Submit your offer to the RFP in accordance with the RFP instructions. Question: 72 Page(s): 81, 91 Para.L.2.2.3,M.4.3 The Past Performance response (Volume 2 Part 3) is limited to 5 pages but the referenced section does not provide any guidance regarding the number of contracts and task orders the government requires to ascertain whether an offeror has an acceptable performance history. Further, there is no guidance on how the number of contracts cited will affect the governments evaluation of offerors performance. (1) With a 5-page limit on this section, citing multiple contracts restricts the ability to describe contract details that strengthen relevance. Will the government explain the relative importance of relevance in the scoring so that offerors may balance their submissions to meet the governments past performance information needs? Response: Maximum page count will be extended to 15 pages in L.1.3.d Question: 73 Page: 82 Para.L.2.2.3.3 How does the Government define a significant portion of the effort? Is it based on a specific percentage? Response: Language in L.2.2.3.3 has been modified. Question: 74 Page: 82 Para.L.2.2.4 The Governments model Small Business Participation Plan indicates that offerors are to provide Percentages based on Dollar Value (top of page 83). Does Dollar Value indicate total contract value or total value of subcontracted work? If total contract value, does the Government define total contract value as a) the IDIQ ceiling, or b) the sample task(s) proposed total value? Response: It will be based on the total dollar value of each awardees Task Orders. Question: 75 Page: 82 Para.L.2.2.4 The last paragraph in the Paragraph L.2.2.4 is numbered as (2); however, there is no paragraph numbered as (1) in the section. Suggest re-numbering the first paragraph in Paragraph L.2.2.4 as (1). Response: Recommended change to L.2.2.4 has been incorporated. Question: 76 Page: 81 Para.L.2.3, M.4.5 Will the government please clarify the following questions with regards to price evaluation? " How will the government evaluate the labor rates for each category? " Will it be an average of the total the levels for each category? " How will the rates and the Sample Task Orders be weighted. " Will the government provide a complete list of labor categories required for each Sample Task? Response: The Government will evaluate price as stated in Section M. Sample Task Orders have been removed from RFP. Question: 77 Page: 84 Para.L.2.2.4 A) If the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted separately, is it to be submitted as an appendix? B) If so is it included in the page count for Volume 2 Tab 4? Response: A page requirement for the Small Subcontracting Plan has been incorporated into Section L, Volume 2 submission requirement. Question: 78 Page: 86 Para.L.2.3.e.6 Paragraph L.2.3(e)(6) states, Pricing for the Price Model, Attachment J-9, shall be based on Government stated labor mix/labor hours and priced using labor rates from Offerors proposed Labor Rate Table. Attachment J-9 on Page 73 is referenced as Sample Task Order 2 (O&M for Biometrics Identification System. We suggest that Paragraph L.2.3(e)(6) on Page 86 be modified to reference the appropriate Price Model. Response: The language in L.2.3 has been modified. Sample Task Orders have been removed. Question: 79 Page: 87 Para.L.3 Use of Contractor Personnel in Support of the Source Selection Process, requires Offerors to enter into company-to-company Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA),the section reference is..the following Contractors... but only one is listed. How many companies should be listed in this section, one or three? This section also requires three copies of the NDA. Was this a carry over from the Advisory Multi-Step Notice for the Biometrics Operations and Support Services Unrestricted (BOSS-U) Acquisition or is a copy of the NDA with Cogent Solutions required in each of the three volumes? Finally, I was not able to instructions for the NDA in Section L.1.3. Can you clarify this requirement? Response: L.3 has been modified to reflect the contractors who will support the evaluation process and with whom offerors will be required to enter into NDAs. Question: 80 Page: 87 Para.L.3 The RFP states that offerors are required to submit three copies of the executed Cogent Solutions NDA to the Government. Is this documentation to be submitted as part of the proposal, and if so, in which volume? Response: We have revised this requirement in the final RFP.
 

Web Link

FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=12d10fee3404ffe9853432a0b0167ff6&tab=core&_cview=1)
 

Place of Performance

Address: ACA, ITEC4 Directorate of Contracting , 2461 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria VA

Zip Code: 22331-0700
 

Record

SN01619182-W 20080723/080721223345-cfc7e1ecdf3b5fe1cf24732ba1f74998 (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |