answers to questions.docx

Question: It is possible that, once the test plan is developed in Task 1, it will be evident that it will not be advantageous to complete all of the options listed in the SOO by 8/30/2025. For example, considering that Task 3 builds on Task 2 and Task 4 builds on Task 3, there is an argument to be made to not overlap the testing Options. Given the suggested POPs (i.e., 8 months for Task 2, 8 months for Task 3, 10 months for Task 4), we are already looking at 26 months of POP just for testing if we do not overlap these tasks. Is there flexibility for the Vendor to propose a schedule that extends beyond the 8/30/25 POP, and the contract to be amended accordingly at award? Also, will a proposed extended schedule beyond 8/30/25 be seen as a negative during proposal evaluation?

Answer: There is flexibility for the offeror to propose their own timeline, so the period of performance will be amended at contract award if necessary. It is possible that after Task 1 is completed and/or various option tasks have been exercised that some of the follow-on options/tasks will not be required. The RFP has been structured so that if a particular option task is not required, the Government will not execute that option. Since there is flexibility for the offeror to propose the periods of performance an extended schedule beyond August 30, 2023 will not be viewed negatively.

Question: It is understood that the prime contractor must be a small business, and that the prime contractor must make up 51% of the overall contract. Must the prime contractor also make up 51% of each Option task in which the “Vendor Performs All Actions”?

Answer: The requirement is for 51% of the total contract and not specific to the option tasks.