QA 30Mar11.doc

DOC document 31 KB Posted

Attached to
Infrastructure, Development, and Engineering (IDE) Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number
Not on record
Issued by
Department of the Air Force Materiel Command

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Infrastructure, Development, and Engineering (IDE), newest first.
File Type Posted
RFP FBO QA 1.docx DOCX document
Section L Attachments 25Mar11.docx DOCX document
FA9422-11-R-0001 Amend 1 25Mar11.pdf PDF
More Q A 1Feb11.docx DOCX document
FA9422-11-R-0001 1Mar11.pdf PDF
Section L Attachments 1Mar11.docx DOCX document
RFPLtr 1Mar11.pdf PDF
IndustryDayQA 24Jan11.docx DOCX document
DMOC Brief - IDE Industry Day_V2 101213.pptx PPTX presentation
Contracting Industry_day_IDE_8 Dec 10 101213.ppt PPT presentation
Draft RFP 101202.pdf PDF
Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Infrastructure, Development, and Engineering (IDE) Contract

Questions

Since release of RFP Amendment #1 and the final Questions & Answers (Q&A), we received two additional questions that pertain to offerors proposal submission. The questions and answers are as follows.

A. RFP/Contract Related:

Q1: The published IDE RFP Amendment has caused us some confusion. Table 2.2 Section L specifically calls each Element a Volume (IIa - IIh). This implies that each Element is to be submitted in separate binders and also implies certain restrictions concerning cross referencing along with requirements for a glossary etc. Is it the Government’s intent that the Elements be considered as separate Volumes or are they sub elements (Tabs) to a consolidated Volume II?

A1: They are considered as sub-elements to a consolidated Volume II.

Q2: In the set of Questions and Answers dated 25 MAR 2011, the answer to Question 6 states that the “start date for pricing proposes will be 1 FEB 12 performance start date for the 30-day transition period”. Task Order (TO) 1 which includes the Transition Period provides a completion date of 12 MARO for the Labor and ODC CLINs and 30 DARO for the Transition CLINs. This would imply that the two are running concurrent. And, if the other TOs were awarded at the same time as TO 1, they would be running concurrent as well. Is the governments intent to award TO 1 with a 30 day Transition Period and at its completion begin a 12 month period of performance (POP) for the Program Management and Administration portion of the TO. This would be a total POP of 13 months, not 12 months. At the end of the 30 day Transition Period, the remaining TOs (2 through 5) would be awarded for a 12 month POP. Is this correct?? If not, what is the Government’s plan for TO execution?

A2: Offerors should provide for a separately priced 30-day transition period (work required is covered within TO1 SOW). In addition to the transition period, offerors should price “full up” work for TO 1 for a Period of Performance (PoP) of 12 months in duration and price TO’s 2 - 5 for a PoP of 12 months.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .