SOLICITATION NOTICE
R -- Biometrics Operations and Support Services - Unrestricted (BOSS-U) Acquisition Draft RFP Questions and Responses Part 3
- 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 81 through 104 Question: 81 Page: 87 Para.L.3 This section identifies the contractor personnel that will assist the government in the source selection evaluation process and identifies one contractor from Cogent Solutions. The synopsis provided under FedBiz Ops listed two additional companies (EM&I and RTEC Services). Will the government update this section accordingly to identify all contractors supporting their evaluation process? Response: Para L.3 of the RFP has been updated to identify contractors that will support the evaluation process. Question: 82 Page: 88 Para.M.2 M.2 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. b.1. The criteria states that all sub factors are weighted equal, i.e., the sample task responses for sub factors a and d will not outweigh offerors responses to b, c, e and f. If that is true, then the sample task responses for A and D have the same weight as the responses provided outside of the sample task. Please verify that this is correct. Response: The sample Task Orders have been removed. Question: 83 Page: 88 Para.M.2.b.1 Paragraph M.2(b)(1) refers to the six Functional Categories by name and T number (in parentheses). However the order (or T number) does not match the order or Functional Category number designated in Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.1 through C.2.6. Suggest that the Functional Category order (and T number) in Paragraph M.2(b)(1) be modified to match the order in Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.2 through C.2.6 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Section L and M have been normalized with Section C concerning order of Functional Categories Question: 84 Page: 88 Para.M.2.b.1 Paragraph M.2(b)(1)(c) 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 M.2(b)(1)(c) be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Functional Category titles have been corrected. Question: 85 Page: 88 Para.M.2.b.1.b A. RFP Indicates: Paragraphs M.2(b)(1)(b) 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. B. Constructive Comment: We suggest that the language in Paragraphs M.2(b)(1)(b) be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(5) and C.2.5 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Functional Category titles have been corrected. Question: 86 Page: 89 Para.M.2.c.1.b This factor discloses the weighting for the evaluation of technical sub-factors within the Technical Factor, but not within the Management Factor. Please provide this information. Response: There are no discreet sub-factors under management approach. Question: 87 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1 Similar issue as L.2.2.1 above, this list of functional areas contains a duplicate and is incomplete. Please clarify the meaning of leaving functional areas off this list. Response: With the removal of the sample task orders, the RFP has been modified to call out the six functional task areas. Question: 88 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1 In Paragraph M.4.1, Advanced Technology Demonstration is listed twice. Suggest removing the duplicate entry of Advanced Technology Demonstration in Paragraph M.4.1. Response: Section M.4.1 has been revised. Question: 89 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1 Paragraph M.4.1 refers to Functional Category 2 as Infrastructure Procurement, Design, Development, & 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 M.4.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2(2) and C.2.2 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Section M.4.1 has been revised. Question: 90 Page: 89 Para.M.4.1 Paragraph M.4.1 refers to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Demonstration. However, Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.5 refer to Functional Category 5 as Advanced Technology Analysis and Demonstration. Suggest that the language in Paragraph M.4.1 be modified to match the terminology in Paragraphs C.1.2 and C.2.5 to provide consistency within the RFP. Response: Section M.4.1 has been revised. Question: 91 Page: 91 Para.M.4.3 The first paragraph of this section states, This evaluation will focus on the size, scope and complexity of the efforts, and the relevance to the Functional Categories. An offeror could conceivably have experience that is relevant to the six functional categories, but be unrelated to the BTFs mission. We suggest that you add the words, and to the BTFs mission after the word Categories. Response: Section M.4.3 has been modified. Question: 92 Page: 92 Para.M.4.4 The draft RFP has a minimum subcontracting requirement which includes Historically Black Educational Institutions, however, there are some these Educational Institutions that have will not accept the following clause in their subcontract because it limits fundamental research and conflicts with both National Security Decision Directive 189 and institution Boards of Trustees requirements: (1) On page 37, Section H.22, paragraph (e) (4), it states: The contractor agrees that it will not distribute reports, data or information of any nature arising from its performance under this contract, except as provided by the task order or as may be directed by the contracting officer. (2) DFARS 252.204-7000, Disclosure of Information, is incorporated on page 57. Please advise if the Government would remove or modify these clauses so as not to preclude the Education Institutions from participating as Team members. Response: The language in Section H.22 and DFARS clause 252.204-7000 will not be removed. Question: 93 Page: 92 Para.M.4.5 (c) What is the Government's method for determining price realism? Response: We will not evaluate for price realism. This language will be removed from the RFP. Question: 94 Page: General Para.TOC Attachments found in file BOSSUJ1thruJ7.pdf do not correspond to the list in the Table of Contents. The attachment J-3 in the pdf file is Labor Category Table, and attachment J-4 is the Pricing Table. The attachment for the Pricing Model in not found in the pdf file. Please clarify and reconcile the attachments listed in the Table of Contents with those in the attachment file BOSSUJ1thruJ7.pdf Response: List of attachments has been revised. Question: 95 Page: General Para. Does the Government anticipate requesting oral presentations? Response: There will be no oral presentations. Question: 97 Page: General Para. We have heard that task orders may be submitted as soon as the contract is awarded. In order to be fair to RFP respondents such that all will have access to the same information, has any bidders library or other documentation been or can be provided? Response: The only information provided is via FedBizOps and the Army Single Face to Industry. Any Task Orders to be issued after award of the contract will be conducted through fair opportunity per FAR 16.505. Question: 98 Page: J3-1 Para.J - Column 6 Header Are we correct in assuming this should this read Minimum Experience? Response: Correct. The title should read Minimum Experience. Question: 99 Page: J-6-1 Para.J-6 It is unclear when the contractor is to complete and submit Attachment J-6. Since this will be an IDIQ contract, are we correct in assuming that the completed Attachment J-6 would be submitted with each task order proposal, rather than with the vehicle-level proposal? Response: Upon contract award. Question: 100 Page 35, Para H.17 The referenced provision states that &contractors shall comply with meeting the mandatory small business subcontracting goal of 25% of the total contract value& (emphasis added). Usually subcontracting goals are stated as a percentage of subcontracted dollars versus total contract value. Is it the governments intent to mandate that a minimum of 25% of all contract dollars be subcontracted to small businesses or should this be the percentage of subcontracted dollars? Response: It will be based on the total dollar value of each awardees Task Orders. Question: 101 Page: General Para. In working our response to the subject RFP, it is requested that the government provide further clarification as to the definition of the functional requirements for liaison services and collaboration services. It appears that there are various interpretations among industry as to just what these types of support services entail from a functional and technical perspective. Any further clarification or elaboration that you could provide would assist in the ability to provide concise and relevant proposals. Response: Liaison services are defined as those coordination/interfaces between the Requiring Activity and the Stakeholder community. Collaboration services are capabilities allowing multiple geographically dispersed users and group to communicate and share information. Question: 102 Page: General Para. In supporting the proposal to the subject Solicitation and addressing the diverse range of capabilities desired under the BOSS program, we considered having participation from academia in the proposal. One obvious qualified source being considered is the Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) of West Virginia University. In conducting our assessment we have found that the Department of Defense Biometric Task Force is an affiliate member of CITeR as are several other DoD organizations and commercial enterprises. The CITeR publicly states that the key to its success is the participation by its affiliates. As such, through the BTFs membership and affiliation with CITeR, by having CITeR proposed as part of any proposed team would literally be creating a situation whereby BTF would be a party participating in a proposal being submitted to and to be evaluated by the BTF. That being the case, we are concerned that having the CITeR join our team or support our proposal effort in any manner would be a clear and unequivocal conflict of interest under FAR Part 9.5. Will you please provide us with a Conflict of Interest determination in this regard? Further, would a bidders use of this qualification or capability of being a affiliate of CITeR be considered as a legitimate competitive advantage and afford it a higher rating to its proposal in that BTF and DoD would essentially be rating its own capabilities? Response: Any determination for Conflict of Interest will be made on a case-by-case basis after receipt of proposals. Question: 103 Page: General Para. It is our understanding that West Virginia Universitys CITeR is a non-profit organization formed under the various applicable regulations of the Internal Revenue Service. One fundamental requirement of obtaining and maintaining such favorable regulatory treatment is that any such organization must benefit the broadest community of interest and cannot be partial to any commercial interest(s). Further, by regulation, there can be no inherent advantage to any commercial party or preferential treatment of one commercial interest over another by virtue of a party being a member or not being a member in any such association. Specifically, through the performance of particular services for its member organizations an organization (such as CITeR) disqualifies itself for tax-exemption under the Internal Revenue Code(s). In discussing CITeRs availability and ability to support any offerors proposal on the BOSS procurement, CITeR has indicated that they would only support the proposal efforts of parties who are members or affiliates of CITeR. We believe that this exclusionary practice is in direct conflict with the regulations which grant the CITeR favorable treatment under IRS regulations. Will you please clarify this matter? Response: Teaming arrangement are at the discretion of individual contractor organizations. Question: 104 Page: General Para. Under Section H.17, Small Business Subcontracting Goals (a) A mandatory small business subcontracting goal of 25% of the total contract value is stipulated. It has been our experience developing small business subcontracting plans, that small business subcontracting goals are referenced as a percentage of total subcontract value not total contract value. In addition, goal percentage reporting requirements per the FAR and as outlined on the SF294 and SF295 are listed as a percentage of total subcontract value (dollars). Was the reference to total contract value a typo and should it not be total subcontract value? Response: It will be based on the total dollar value of each awardees Task Orders.
- 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
- Zip Code: 22331-0700
- Record
- SN01619183-W 20080723/080721223347-12d10fee3404ffe9853432a0b0167ff6 (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 |