SOLICITATION NOTICE
70 -- Amendment 02-Cancels Amd 01 and retransmits the information in Amendment 01
- Notice Date
- 2/3/2006
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- Contracting Office
- GovWorks, Attn: Mr. Paul Kennedy 381 Elden Stret, MS 2510 Herndon VA 20170
- ZIP Code
- 20170
- Solicitation Number
- 1435-04-06-60403
- Response Due
- 2/25/2006
- Archive Date
- 2/3/2007
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- 1. The purpose of this Amendment is to delete Amendment 01 in its entirety due to an adminsitrative error in the FedBizOps transmission and replace it with Amendment 02 which contains the same information that was in Amendment 01. 2. Therefore, add the following hardware items that were inadvertently left out of the initial solicitation as follows: " Paragraph 1.3.b.6: Add Fingerprint Image Server (FIS) and UPS for the FIS" 3. In addition to the above, the Government hereby provides a list of questions and associated answers received to date in response to GovWorks RFP 60403. 4.The proposal receipt date is NOT extended. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RFP Number 1435-04-06-RP-60403 US MEPCOM Fingerprint Services/Software and Equipment Maintenance 1. Question: Schedule of Supplies/Services (RFP page 3): Line items 0003, 0103, 0203, 0303, and 0403 are Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLINs each with an annual limit of $5,000. Is it correct to assume that these ODC CLINs are to cover ODCs, such as travel costs, for both the Firm Fixed Price CLINs and the T&M (additional services) CLINs? ANSWER: Yes. 2. Schedule of Supplies/Services (RFP page 6): Line item 0303 is identified as an ODC CLIN with an NTE of $5,000 per year. The Total Price for this CLIN indicates an NTE of $100,000. Is it correct to assume that this is a typo and the total price should read "Not to Exceed $5,000"? ANSWER: Yes, it is a typo. Should read "Not to Exceed $5,000." 3. QUESTION: Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.3 (page 9): Paragraph 1.3 of the PWS includes the sentence "This task will require, at a minimum, an IT-1: SSBI investigation", requiring personnel to hold an IT-1 clearance, which requires a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). Since this sentence follows a sentence relating to mandated software changes, it is unclear whether the IT-1 requirement applies to all personnel who may work on the contract, or just those associated with responding to mandated software changes. Due to the nature of this contract, many contractor personnel may be required during the contract performance to meet the contract requirements, but very few of those individuals would be performing tasks in positions which could jeopardize national security. It would seem unnecessary for all of these personnel to require IT-1 clearances or even IT-II (national agency check with law and credit) or IT-III (national agency check) investigations. Please clarify the clearance/investigation requirements for this contract. ANSWER: Only those individuals who are system administrators for EFCS will require an IT-1 clearance. This is per Section V 4-14 of AR 25-2. This includes administrators for both the hardware and the software of EFCS. Any individual who does not have administrator privileges will not require an IT-1 clearance. 4. QUESTION: Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.3 (page 10): Paragraph 1.3.a describes the requirements for the FIS software updates. The task described (demonstrating the updated FIS functionality) seems to be a one-time event, possibly during the 6-month base period. It is unclear whether the Contractor is to price any software updates during the four option periods since that effort is not yet defined and could not be accurately priced in the Firm Fixed Price CLINs. Is it correct to assume that only the initial software updates are to be priced (i.e., in CLIN 0001) and any future software updates would be proposed as task orders under a T&M arrangement? ANSWER: Yes, correct. 5. QUESTION: Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.3 (page 10): Paragraph 1.3.b describes the requirements for the Maintenance Contractor's Help Desk. Is it correct to assume that USMEPCOM will maintain its own help desk (providing the direct interface to the MEPS) and the calls to the Maintenance Contractor's Help Desk will come from the USMEPCOM Help Desk? ANSWER: Yes. 6. QUESTION: Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.3 (page 10): Paragraph 1.3.b describes the requirements for the Maintenance Support Services. Since the Fingerprint Interface Server and the UPS products are not identified in the list of hardware to be supported, is it correct to assume that maintenance of those products is outside of the scope of work? ANSWER: No. Unfortunately, those items were left off of the PWS. The FIS and UPS should be included in the list of hardware to be supported by maintenance. 7. QUESTION: Performance Work Statement paragraph 1.3 (page 10): Paragraph 1.3.b states "Licensed provider help desk will provide support for operational issues, trouble shooting assistance, technical consultation, and assistance with data analysis and reports. If licensed provider Help Desk is unable to answer specific questions, they will contact engineering support as needed to resolve issues." Is it correct to assume that licensed provider is the Contractor's Level 1 help desk and if they are unable to answer a question then it is passed to our Level 2 Help Desk / Engineering support? ANSWER: No. It was written assuming that "licensed provider help desk" was LHM or alternative proposal help desk who would provide level 1 and 2 support and would then pass onto LHM level 3 engineering support if needed. USMEPCOM Help Desk would attempt to resolve issue prior to passing off to LHM Help Desk. 8. QUESTION: Section 508 Compliance Requirements (RFP page 20): Paragraph 12.0 of the RFP identifies specific Section 508 compliance requirements. Since this proposal is to maintain an already fielded hardware/software configuration, is it correct to assume that the Contractor is not required to evaluate each of the products in the fielded configuration, and if necessary, bring any non-compliant products up to Section 508 compliance? ANSWER: Since each EFCS was fielded with an equipment stand that can be lowered or raised to various heights the assumption that the Contractor is not required to evaluate each of the products in the fielded configuration, and if necessary, bring any non-compliant products up to Section 508 compliance is correct. 9. QUESTION: Manpower Reporting Requirements (RFP page 20): Paragraph 13.0 of the RFP identifies manpower reporting requirements. Is it correct to assume that manpower reporting would only be required for T&M task orders done under this contract, and would not be required for the Firm Fixed Price effort? ANSWER: No, the type of contract doesn't matter. Manpower reporting is required for T&M as well as Firm Fixed Price. A copy of this amendment can also be found at http://www.govworks.gov/vendor/csolicit.asp ...................................End of Amendment 02-RFP 1435-04-06-RP-60403........................................
- Web Link
-
Please click here to view more details.
(http://ideasec.nbc.gov/j2ee/announcementdetail.jsp?serverId=MM143501&objId=304559)
- Place of Performance
- Address: HQ USMEPCOM and its 65 MEPS
- Zip Code: 600643094
- Country: USA
- Zip Code: 600643094
- Record
- SN00980035-W 20060205/060203212524 (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 |