MODIFICATION
10 -- Questions and Answers
- Notice Date
- 8/9/2010
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 423610
— Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
- Contracting Office
- RDECOM Contracting Center - Natick R&D (RDECOM-CC), ATTN: AMSRD-ACC-N, Natick Contracting Division (R and BaseOPS), Building 1, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760-5011
- ZIP Code
- 01760-5011
- Solicitation Number
- W911QY10R0067
- Response Due
- 8/10/2010
- Archive Date
- 10/9/2010
- Point of Contact
- Brian P. Murphy, 407-384-5198
- E-Mail Address
-
RDECOM Contracting Center - Natick R&D (RDECOM-CC)
(brian.murphy3@us.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Question #1: The pre-solicitation synopsis and draft PWS all point to using the NAICS code 423610 (Security Systems Merchant Wholesalers), except on page 44 in section H.19 Small Business Set-Aside Awardees, where the same NAICS code (423610) is described as Fire Fighting, Rescue and Safety Equipment, which is confusing since the 2007 NAICS Definition for 423610 is Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers. The PWS calls for system integration, deployment of personnel to OCONUS locations, and numerous other requirements that are not typical of electrical equipment wholesalers. Response: See U.S Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definition at http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. The 2007 NAICS Code 423610 has a Corresponding Index Entry as Security Systems Merchant Wholesalers. Please review the entire list under this specific code number. Any contractor may be required to deploy personnel to OCONUS locations if the installation of their products warrant. Question #2: Is there an existing estimate of the following - percent of funding spent on each equipment, services, in CONUS and OCONUS? Is there a list of projects that are currently in the budget process? If so, can that be made available? Response: Sorry No, the solicitation is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract. Currently there is no definitive list of projects. Question #3: The salient characteristics in Appendix A (pg 111) seem to point to specific product types that would otherwise be obtained on a GSA Schedule. Is the intent of this program, then, to provide the integration and COP views, and not to procure these devices as well? Response: The Governments intent is to procure the types of items required by PM-Force Protection Systems using this IDIQ contract, that are not under another contract. No, the hardware and ancillary services such as installation, training and maintenance support is all that is required. Intent is to utilize Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) equipment. Question #4: One of the requirements is to support maintenance and training (both NET and sustainment type training) for a period of one year beyond initial deployment. What are the resources available to continue sustainment (e.g., refresher training, supply and logistics, spare parts/maintenance) so that a strategy can be developed to stage those aspects for the greatest degree of success into the O&M phase? Response: Current planning is that follow-on sustainment will be provided through Product Manager Consequence Management as a separate contract. Question #5: Under the section of the synopsis entitled Partial Small Business Set-Aside Lot, it is stated that, The Milestones for this acquisition are shown in Section 20, Acquisition Milestone Schedule. However, that section does not appear in the documentation provided. Can you please share that section? Particularly, the RFP release date. Response: MilestoneStart Date Sources Sought Notice 06/16/10 Draft RFP07/15/10 DASA (P&P) Review AP and RFP12/08/10 RFP release12/15/10 Receive Proposals01/17/11 Proposal Evaluation 05/07/11 Prepare contracts05/20/11 DASA P&P Review08/26/11 Congressional/EEO Notifications08/31/11 Award contracts9/3/11 Post Award Conferences09/20/11 Question #6: Will consideration be given to expanding the page limitation of, at least, Volumes I and II (Technical and Management)? It seems that an acquisition of this nature, including the Salient Characteristics in Appendix A, the instructions, and the evaluation criteria, that more pages could be required to adequately address all of the issues. Response: Based on previous experience with similar acquisitions, the page count is adequate to accurate address the content and intent of offerors proposals. Question #7: Recommend you reduce the number of awards. A large number of awards will potentially lengthen the acquisition and source selection process and make any potential logistics support programs difficult to manage. Response: The Government intends to make the number of awards shown in the draft RFP to ensure maintaining a viable competitive base across the period of performance of the contracts. Question #8: While it is recognized that you are interested in demonstrated performance particularly for the US Army (p15, L.5.0 Volume I, Technical), will proven experience with nearly if not identical requirements performed for another branch of the US Armed Services be scored lower upon evaluation by the selection authority? Response: Valid point.... particularly for the US Army. will be replaced with... in a combat environment. Question #9: Can a proposed large business prime contractor also be subcontractor on the team of a proposed small business prime. Likewise, can a proposed small business prime also be a subcontractor on the team of a proposed large business prime? Response: Yes, but the small businesses are required to perform 51% of the effort. Question #10: In the information provided it states the following: Offerors, small or large, competing for an Integrated Base Defense contract award must be able to provide the preponderance of the capabilities and products required under this solicitation. The Government will also consider offerors that team with companies capable of providing the preponderance of the capabilities and products needed. What metric is the government going to use in determining factor for preponderance of the capabilities and products? Response: The Government will use the RFP Section M.3.2 standard to evaluate an offerors experience providing the required capabilities. Question #11: According to the RFP, the Government will use data provided by each Offeror in Volume II- Performance Risk and may use data obtained from other sources in the development of performance risk assessments for each Offeror. What other sources does the government intend to use in the development of the risk assessment? Response: The primary sources for past performance information are as stated in the RFP, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Past Performance Questionnaires. If other validated sources are available to the evaluation team, those sources may be used also during evaluations. Question #12: During a review of the SEIWG Technical Architecture, we found numerous comments and notes that would indicate that changes, edits, or corrections are to be made to the document. Did we receive the final version of the document or is there another version that should be used by contractors in support of this contract? Response: SEIWG ICD 0101A dated May 2009 is final edition which supersedes all previous changes. The version provided is the final document, which is applicable for this acquisition. The comments shown in the Disposition of Comments section were included to capture pertinent comments made during development of the document. Question #13: Iraq and Afghanistan are specifically mentioned as deployment areas. Are there any other countries / Areas of Responsibility we should anticipate being asked to support? Response: If performance in other countries is required over the period of performance of the contracts, the delivery order(s) will specify the countries. Adjustments to the contracts may be made based on the location and complexity of the work to be performed. Question #14: PSC operating licenses are expensive and difficult to obtain. Is the cost of licensing reimbursable? What assistance will we receive from the government in obtaining the required weapons permits/security service licenses? If partnered with a company holding a current license, under what circumstances will the government allow that license to cover all team members? Response: No weapons are required or authorized. The Government will provide force protection when in designated hostile fire areas. Question #15: Will the government provide facilities / weapons for pre-deployment weapons certification or will this be done in country by the contractor? Response: No, not under this contract. Any weapons certification or system/component qualification will be performed under separate services contracts. This contract is for the procurement of approved COTS and NDI hardware. System level factory acceptance testing will be conducted at contractor provided facilities in most instances. Exceptions in which the Government elects to provide Government facilities andor GFE to facilitate acceptance testing will be clearly identified in the DO. Question #16: Will the government establish a common Standards of Conduct for all contractor personnel? Response: Yes. Standard FAR provisions such as Code of Business Ethics and Conduct Apply. Additionally, JCC-I/A Clause 952.225-0004, Compliance With Laws and Regulations governing Iraq and Afghanistan will also be included in all contracts awarded. Question #17: Will contractors be required / encouraged to / prohibited from acquiring hardened vehicles in the execution of the contracted duties? Response: Not required and not prohibited. However, all movement within designated hostile fire areas will be controlled by the combatant commander and will be subject to escort or other designated restrictions. Question #18: Will the government allow non-U.S. companies to bid, either as Prime or Sub? Response: Yes within the limits of applicable US statutes and guidance in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Also, please note that a security clearance level of Secret is required. Foreign nationals cannot be granted security clearances. Question #19: Will NATO / Allied Forces security clearances be accepted? Response: NO& NATO / Allied Forces clearances are not interchangeable with a US SECRET Clearance which is specified under Clause H.23. Question #20: According to the draft RFP the Technical Factor is based on the ten required capabilities identified in the SOO. The evaluation will be based on an offerors proven experience delivering products that provide the required capabilities. Is the Prime required to have delivered the capabilities? Response: The offeror-team is required to have proven experience delivering products that provide the required capabilities. Past performance considers how much work which is relevant to the current procurement has been performed and how well it has been performed. Performance by a subcontractor or teaming partner would be considered, however, contractual relationship and level of dedication of the proposed subcontractor or teaming partner would have to be established and documented through Teaming Agreements, the Sub-contracting Plans, and the Small Businees Participation Plan since only the prime is responsible to the Government for performance of the required work. Question #21: On page 105 under the Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Explosives (CBRNE) it states the following: Provide modular, tailorable and scalable CBRNE detection, identification, protection, response, warning, and information management capabilities for critical missions (Fixed and handheld sensors). Should the information systems be compatible with any existing government sensors? Which ones? Should the sensors be compatible with any existing government information systems? Which ones? Response: The Government preference is for open architecture communications solutions using government and industry standard protocols for wired and wireless data and video communications (i.e. RS-232, RS-422, RS-170, IEEE 801.11x, etc.) Proprietary data interfaces are highly discouraged. Question #22: Does the government intend to hold an industry day to facilitate the distribution of information? If so, when and where? Response: No industry day is planned currently. The draft RFP was issued with an ample period ot time for questions and answers provided to facilitate the distribution of information. Question #23: In the past four months there have been at least 7 RFIs requested by at least 3 different contracting commands for BETSS-C family of systems capabilities, products, improvements, and/or support. Is there an over-arching acquisition strategy that defines how all these requests fit into or are integrated with the current Integrated Base Defense ID/IQ contract. Response: This acquisition, the Force Protection Omnibus acquisition, is not directly related to other acquisitions currently being planned. Question #24: Item 3 states, Offerors, small or large, competing for an Integrated Base Defense contract award must be able to provide the preponderance of the capabilities and products required under this solicitation. Given the breadth and depth of the equipment in the salient characteristics list, please define preponderance of the capabilities and products in objective terms. Response: Please see the answer to Question #10. Question #25: Section L.7.2 states that Offerors shall ensure that completed questionnaires are submitted to the Government no later than 1 week before the proposal due date. As the Offerors can control when the Questionnaires are sent to each Customer Program Manager and Contract POC, but not when those POCs submit their questionnaires to the Government, will the Government consider revising the requirement to specify a due date for delivery of the questionnaires to the appropriate POCs and the list of submitted questionnaires to the Government? Response: Sorry, No. The Questionnaires are due to the Government no later than 1 week before the proposal due date as stated in the draft RFP. This is a standard suspense in most Government RFPs requiring a Past Performance questionnaire. Question #26: Does the Government intend for the Offeror to provide the complete text of each Teaming Agreement or is a signature page or signed letter of intent sufficient? Response: As stated in the RFP the offeror shall provide... a signed document (format as established by Offeror) indicating a legally binding agreement (i.e., Teaming Agreements) among the parties. A full Teaming Agreement is not required, however a short narrative detailing what the companies agree to in their arrangement in terms of level of effort by each firm is beneficiary to the offeror. Question #27: The first paragraph in the section states that the Small Business Participation goal is not less than 15%, yet the category table adds up to 16%. Please clarify. Response: At least 15% of the total dollar value must be sub-contracted to small businesses, when applicable. Of the amount sub-contracted to small businesses the allocations to the socio-economic categories shown in the table in Section H.21 of the draft RFP is 16% of the total value sub-contracted to all small busihnesses. Question #28: Does the Government have an estimate for the proposal response time for the individual Delivery Orders? Response: While proposal response time will vary depending on the size, dollar amount and complexity of the Delivery Order. Delivery Order proposal response time is planned to be 45 days or less, primarily due to time required to conduct the appropriate level of Peer Review. Question #29: It is unclear what we are pricing in the pricing volume. Will fielding and sustainment be proposed as a rate only in the main proposal in which case specific hours (at those specific rates) be bid under each delivery order based on the installation size and required equipment? Response: Fielding and sustainment will be priced in the individual Delivery Orders based upon the CONUS/OCONUS delivery location, ancillory services such as assembly, installation, etc and the sustainment warranty in that specific location. Question #30: It is unclear what we are pricing in the pricing volume. Will a sample delivery order be provided in the final RFP, with a response required for submission with the proposal? Response: The Government is still exploring courses of action in this volume. Presently, the Pricing volume is for products only, which may be procured as needed. An initial Delivery Order may be included for purposes of evaluation, and possible award following the base contract award. However, the initial Delivery Order will not likely include the full range of products to be included in the contract. Question#31: Will the Government be supplying a GFE list with the final RFP? Response: No GFE list will be provided in the Base contract IAW with the final RFP. However, if it becomes necessary at a later date to provide GFE in order to successfully accomplish a Delivery Order, the specific GFE will be identified in the individual Delivery Order RFP. Question #32: Will a single prime be providing all assets for an installation or will multiple primes be supplying components for installation? Response: Delivery Order requirements will not be broken up into separate orders. However, a single installation may have multiple primes working on it due to the award of separate Delivery Orders issued to fullfill specific requirements identified at the time of issuance of the Delivery Order RFP. However, this is a good point, which may develop into a potential evaluation criterion at the Delivery Order level in order to reduce the number of individual Prime contractors deploying overseas, which of course is expensive to the Government, and the offerors. Question #33: Salient Characteristics of the BETSS-C system are provided. Is the Government seeking procurement of other complete Integrated Base Defense systems, or primarily additional BETSS-C systems and enhancements? Response: Complete Integrated Base Defense systems of which BETSS-C systems or components may or may not be included in future Delivery Orders. A central objective of the Force Protection Omnibus acquisition is to allow the Government to procure the required capabilities listed in the SOO. These capabilities and their salient characteristics include BETSS-C and other requirements. Any or all of the capabilities may be procured over the period of performance of the contracts. Question #34: Salient Characteristics of the BETSS-C system are provided. Is the Government seeking to procure additional sensor capabilities to be integrated with the BETSS-C family of systems? If so, can the government make specific RF Communications and COP system interfaces available? Response: No, at this time no additional integration, communications or COP requirements are planned. If the planning changes, the Delivery Orders issued under the future contracts will include specific requirements not addressed in the RFP. Question #35: Page 108, Attachment 5, Core Product List What is the purpose of this list? Will contractors be requested to propose their ability to deliver the exact items on this list or will they be proposing their ability to deliver items that provide a similar capability? Response: The Government desires to procure form, fit and functionally equivalent hardware solutions having the salient characteristics listed. However, the Core Product List maybe revised or removed from the final Force Protection Omnibus RFP. Question #36: The synopsis states that section 20 shows the acquisition milestone schedule, yet it was not included. Please publish the acquisition milestone schedule. Response: Please see the response to Question #5.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/39c054ccc438767a195eeaef72c649b6)
- Place of Performance
- Address: RDECOM Contracting Center - Natick R&D (RDECOM-CC) ATTN: AMSRD-ACC-N, Natick Contracting Division (R and BaseOPS), Building 1, Kansas Street Natick MA
- Zip Code: 01760-5011
- Zip Code: 01760-5011
- Record
- SN02233763-W 20100811/100809235216-39c054ccc438767a195eeaef72c649b6 (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 |