dRFP betaSAM Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mobile Sensors Operation & Maintenance Follow-on
- Solicitation number
- FA702221R0002
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a draft request for proposal for mobile sensor operation and maintenance services. The solicitation will support radar operations on two US Naval ships through a ten-year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract awarded to a single contractor. Key details include required operation and maintenance of S-band and X-band radars, computer systems, and other mobile sensor equipment aboard the ships. The incumbent contractor will transition work for 30 days if another offeror is selected for award. The final RFP will incorporate feedback provided to clarify requirements, attachments, proposal instructions and evaluation criteria. It identifies the involved agency as the Air Force Technical Applications Center.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Question Number | dRFP Section & Paragraph Number | dRFP Page Number(s) | Question | Gov't Response |
| 1 | General | Is the Government planning to hold an Industry Day? If so, is the Government planning on holding one-on-one meeting with potential offerors? | The Government does not intend to hold an Industry Day. | |
| 2 | General | What is the anticipated proposal release date? How many days are anticipated for proposal development? Based on the 10 year, FFP contract, recommend a 60 day turnaround for offerors to gain internal management approval. | This requirement will have a 60 day turnaround for offerors, and the Final RFP will be posted on betaSAM.gov | |
| 3 | DRFP | Attachment 4, Collective Bargaining Agreement, is not referenced in the Model Contract or any of the other attachments. Would the Government identify how this attachment is incorporated into the program? | Final RFP will be amended to address. | |
| 4 | DRFP | Attachment 5 is not referenced in the Model Contract or any of the other attachments. Would the Government identify how this attachment is incorporated into the program? | The Final RFP has attached the CMP as an exhibit for a reference point. The Draft RFP did not have attachements, however the Final RFP added attachments required. | |
| 5 | Model Contract Section G | Noting FAR 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment is incorporated in the Solicitation. Are FFP CLINs subject to this Provision? If not, can the Government advise the preferred method for billing the FFP CLINs (i.e. the daily rate billed Monthly, or…) | Clause associated with 252.232-7006 states use combo for FFP and cost voucher for COST CLINs. Gov't can not direct how the offeror will bill. | |
| 6 | Model Contract Section H | Can the Government clarify the requirement of H-3 TS/SCI clearance for Facility. Does the Gov't anticipate work to be performed at the Contractor facilities? | No. | |
| 7 | Section L para L.2.3.3 and L.2.6 | Paragraphs L.2.3.3 and L.2.6 indicate the Government is setting up a reference library. |
a. When does the Government plan to establish the reference library?
b. What level of (facility) clearance is required for the classified reference library?
| c. Would the Government provide contact information for Mr. James Smith from the AFTAC/SD Security Office, as referenced in L.2.6? | The Technical and Reference library references have been removed from the solicitiation; therefore, the follow-on responses are not applicable | |||
| 8 | Section L para L.4.0 | Paragraph L.4.0 Identifies an Executive Summary. This is not included in Table 3.1 Proposal Organization. Is there a page limit for the Executive Summary? | The Final RFP has been revised | |
| 9 | Section L | Volume II Technical Capability does not include a section for the offeror to discuss its compliance to the PWS. Recommend allocating a section to discuss compliance to all aspects of the PWS. | The Final RFP has been revised. | |
| 10 | Section L | Section L does not have a specific paragraph addresssing the requirements of Volume 1 Model Contract. Is this an oversight? | The Final RFP has been revised | |
| 11 | Section L para L.2.3.2. | Regarding Section L.2.3.2 - Customer has indicated that bidder must transition or retain key, critical personnel. Please identify these personnel. | Key personnel have been highlighted in the revised PWS. | |
| 12 | Section L para L.2.3.2. | Section L, section 1 staffing (and L.5.2.4.1.2) - Customer has indicated that we must provide SMEs at remote locations. Is this to mean on-call personnel at remote sites, or that SMEs must travel to remote sites to service platforms when in port, or that SMEs must be on the ships. | PWS has been revised. | |
| 13 | Section L para L.3.2, L.3.4 | L.3.2, L.3.4 - L.3.4 calls for a Common Master Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for each volume. It is not lised in L.3.2 as an exclusion, so the implication is that this CRM is counted in the page count for each volume. Please clarify. | The CRM/Cross Reference Matrix is not counted in the page count. See paragraph L.3.2 | |
| 14 | Section L Para L.8.1.1.1 | L.8.1.1.1. states the Government will provide a pricing model that will show the details of how that fully burdened daily rate is calculated. When will this pricing model be available? | Any reference to pricing model removed from applicable docs. The RFP has been revised and add only the Total Evaluated Price Spreadsheet. | |
| 15 | Section L Para L.8.1.1.1 | L.8.1.1.1. restricts CR CLIN X004 Travel from applying overhead or handling fees. While our company can control the direct rates that are applied to travel in our offer, we have to comply with our Government approved disclosure statement, which would apply G&A to Travel. Respectfully request the Government not over-constrain the cost-reimbursable CLINs and allow companies to bid in accordance with their approved disclosure statements. | CR CLIN X004 is a line item in which the Government has added an estimated Value that is calculated in the Total Evaluated Price. | |
| 16 | Section L para L.8.2 | L.8.2 section 3, para 1 asks for a plan to identify use of existing government facilities. Please provide a description of the currently available facilities and those used currently by the program (including MSMO and the space on the two ships), so that can respond to this request. | GS has 8 available state rooms. CK has at least 24 single occupancy rooms. Both ships have numerious technical and work spaces available. The MSMO has approximately 7 single occupancy offices, two secure rooms for the SMMF, 3 large offices (multi desk), and a logistics/supply room with double door access to outside with a truck ramp. Revised PWS reflects this information | |
| 17 | PWS para 1.3.2 | Is the statement to control software on board all vessels intended to include supporting software (i.e. Mission Software Support System (MSSS)? | Controlling software is meant to primarily involve the radar contoller software. The MSSS references specifically the CK computers that run this software. (see answer to question 19 for more details on onboard system verses CONUS digital simulator). Other supporting software such as some post processing software tools are partly handled by outside organizations and partly by O&M contractor. Software maintained by outside organizations will only require basic hardware maintenance (replace computer if failed) and maintaining OS patches and updates. | |
| 18 | PWS para 1.3.3 | Are there any government employees located within the MSMO at Patrick AFB? | No. The MSMO is currently contractor only. | |
| 19 | PWS para 1.3.6 | The PWS states the Software Maintenance Management Facility (SMMF) is co-located with the MSMO at Patrick AFB, Florida, Wright-Patterson AFB Ohio, and aboard Mobile Sensor’s platforms. Is the Wright-Patterson AFB location a government owned facility? | Yes, the WPAFB site is owned by another government run Agency. | |
| 20 | PWS para 1.4.1 | PWS 1.4.1 indicates a Phase-in/Phase-out period occurring 30 days before the first day of contract PoP. Please clarify which CLIN should be used to cover the Phase-in cost. | CLIN 0009 in Final RFP will identify phase-in period. | |
| 21 | PWS para 2.1.6 | Due to the limited amount of berthing on the vessels, crew size is limited. The contractor shall develop a training plan that lists personnel, identifies all tasks, and ensures sufficient coverage to carry out mission objectives. |
| Due to limited birthing on the vessel, what impact does this create if the mission is required to surge to 24 hours vice 8 hours? Is there enough space for an increase of personnel to support the mission increase? | Current manning does allow 24/7 radar operations on a short term bases. | ||
| 22 | PWS para 2.6.2 | The PWS states the contractor shall operate technical systems defined as those data collection and data processing systems on board all vessels. Included are the S-Band radars, X-Band radars, computer and data handling systems, navigation, communications, meteorological, timing, operations control center equipment, data distribution systems, and other associated mobile sensors equipment on board all vessels. |
| Are the data collections and processing tied to Title 10 or 50 responsibilities? If so are the “contractors” required to be certified in these areas? | Title 10 and 50 is not applicable to this requirement. | ||
| 23 | PWS para 2.6.8 | The PWS states contractor shall analyze mission systems operations. Personnel shall be thoroughly knowledgeable of the software, hardware, and configuration of all mobile sensors systems and support equipment. The contractor shall review equipment performance daily to ensure it meets system specifications and to identify degradation, analyze samples of all data output and identify any discrepancies and their causes, and completely analyze all major system outages and anomalous event data. |
| Since operators are tasked to analyze data, is there a specific level of training/certification required for each position on each vessel? What is the baseline the operators are comparing data to ensuring there is no degradation? | Operating Procedures for calibration diagnostics are provided for monitoring system performance and some system troubleshooting. Some additional software tools are available for system performance as well (ARPET on GS for example). These have operating procedures as well. The intent is to be able to monitor calibrations to make adjustments when needed and to observe set radar parameters for changes. The radar parameters thresholds are defined in a classified specification and will also be provided after contract award. | ||||
| 24 | PWS para 3.0 | Please provide a performance history for the critical 'services summary' to indicate the ability to achieve these levels. | The PWS has been revised for performance history | ||
| 25 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.2.3.6 | L.2.3.6 states: "The transition period, if awarded to other than the incumbent, will begin 01 Nov 2021 through 31 Nov 2021" - Should Nov 31 be changed to Nov 30th? | Yes, updated to reflect 30 Nov 2021. | |
| 26 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.5.2.4.2.1 | For L.5.2.4.2.1 Communication manning/O&M we recommend the following sentence be changed from "...skillsets required to fulfill the radar requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS)" to "....skillsets required to fulfill the communication requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS)" | We revised the mentioned paragraph. | |
| 27 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.5.2.7, L.5.2.8 | L.5.2.7 Technical Capability to Perform Mission to Perform Mission Subfactor 4, Quality Control Plan and L.5.2.8 Technical Capability to Perform Mission to Perform Mission Sub-factor 5, Transition/Mobilization have the same typo, should the repeated words "to perform mission" be deleted? | We revised the mentioned paragraph. | |
| 28 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.8.1.1 | L.8.1.1 says "Offeror’s will propose on ten Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS)" but following bullets only list 9 CLINs. Please clarify whether there will be a CLIN 7 added? | Final RFP will be amended to address. | |
| 29 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L |
Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M Attch+3_PWS+Mobile+Sensors L.8.2 Sect 3, para 3 L.2.3.6 M.2.4.4
| PWS 1.5 | Section L.8.2 Sect 3, para 3 and Section M.2.4.4 talk about "...base year and option years". However L.2.3.6 and PWS para 1.5 say "ten year ordering period". We recommend removing references to "base year and options years" as this is intended to be 10 year IDIQ contract. | We revised the mentioned paragraph. | |||
| 30 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.9.1 (c)&(d) | Please confirm that the MQR % of 15% shall be applied to the Offeror proposed total contract value and not the $340,000,000 ceiling value stated in (d) | We revised the Final RFP. | |
| 31 | Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M | M.2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance Volume III | Section M defines, "A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the Offeror itself, that will perform input the same language stated in Section L." Please clarify the definition of critical subcontractor in M.2.3. | Section M.2.3 has been updated to correspond with reference section L. | |
| 32 | Attch+3_PWS+Mobile+Sensors | PWS 2.2.1 | We recommend to replace "subordinate" with "support" in PWS 2.2.1 in the statements related to the contractor security assistant at the MSMO and in the ships to read "support AFTAC/SAG/Security Manager" and "support AFTAC Mission Commander" | Verbiage will remain because this is AFTAC security guidance. | |
| 33 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.1, Table 3.1, L.8.2 | L.3.1 requires Offerors to submit their proposal in 5 separate files as indicated in Table 3.1. For Volume IV Cost/Price Table 3.1 only specifies an Excel file, whereas Section L.8.2 requires submission of price documentation and other information in Sections 2-3 that would not lend itself into Excel format (e.g. narrative, estimating methodology, Forward Pricing Rate Agreements, Total Compensation Plan). Please allow for submission of Cost Volume Narrative and Attachments in pdf format. | Table 3.1 updated. | |
| 34 | Draft RFP Attachment 2 Section M | M.2.4.1 | Offerors are required to show "an understanding of the requirements (completeness)". Since there is no requirement in Section L for a Cost Narrative, how can "an understanding of the requirements (completeness)" be evaluated ? | Factor 3 Cost/Price Proposal has been set up to receive pricing sheets and all other narrative documents to support the proposal | |
| 35 | Draft RFP Attachment 1, Section L | L.8.2.Section 3.3 | Per L.8.3 Section 3.3 Offerors must also provide a narrative that entirely describes the Offerors rationale used to develop each daily rate". Section L.8.2 provides no guidance on Narrative placement in Volume IV organization or structure for Cost Narrative. Will the Government be providing such guidance? | The Final RFP has been revised and tis section has benn removed. | |
| 36 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.5 | Please confirm that with electronic submission of the proposal Tab indexing to separate sections is not required. | Tab indexing is not required for electronic submission. RESERVED | |
| 37 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.7.4 | Please clarify what is "current Air Force standard Adobe Acrobat". | Updated Section L.3.7.4. | |
| 38 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.1, Table 3.1, L.3.7.4 | Please confirm that the proposals are required to be submitted only electronically via DoD SAFE organized in separate files per Table 3.1, therefore the L.3.7.4 requirement to "Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Include a text or document file named "Table_of_Contents" on each disk or CD-ROM provided" does not apply. | Section L.3.7.4 revised, see highlighted area(s). | |
| 39 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.1, Table 3.1, L.4.0 | Please clarify the title of Volume I : Table 3.1 in L.3.1 lists Volume I as "Contract Documentation", L.4.0 lists Volume I as "Executive Summary" | Section L.3.7.4 revised section and tables 3.1 & 4, see highlighted area(s). | |
| 40 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L; Attachment 2 DRFP Section M | L.4.; L.4.1; L.5.2.3; M.2.1 | Section L.4.1 requires Offerors to submit key personnel resumes as part of the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary is NOT evaluated. Therefore the resumes are not evaluated. |
Section L.5.2.3 requires to submit "the numbers, types, qualifications, duties and security clearance level for all proposed key personnel required by the offeror to perform tasks associated with the PWS" in all Technical subfactors. Section M.2.1.1.a Subfactor 1 evaluates the "Staffing Plan" on the Offeror's ability to "recruit, qualify, hire and retain qualified and experienced personnel...".
We recommend the Government move Key Personnel resumes to Volume II Technical Capability as an attachment (not included in page limit for Subfactor 1 Staffing Plan) and include evaluation criteria for Key Personnel qualifications and experience as part of Subfactor 1 Staffing Plan evaluation.
We also recommend deleting requirement in L.5.2.3 to specify and discuss key personnel in each subfactor.
| Removed "key personnel" in executive summary. Key Personnel has been moved to past performance volume. See Revised RFP Section L and M. | |||||
| 41 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.4.2 | L.4.2 references Table 3 - please, confirm that the table reference shall be "Table 4" instead of "Table 3" | Revised Section L | |
| 42 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.4.3.4.2, L.8.1.4 | Sections L.4.3.4.2 and L.8.1.4 state that price information shall be included only in Volume IV Cost/Price and Section B in Vol I shall not have price data. Please clarify what information Offerors shall include in Section B required within Volume I and whether Offerors shall include Section B with price data into Volume IV Cost/Price. | Revised section L.4.3.4.2. | |
| 43 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.5.2.1.1, L.5.2.4-L.2.8, L.6.0 | L.5.2.1.1 and L.6.0 request to identify risks and mitigations at the Subfactor level, the instructions for Volume II Technical Subfactors allow for inclusion (and evaluation) of specific risks only in SF 1 Staffing / Element 4, SF 3 ILSP and SF 5 Transition. | ||
| We recommend the Government update the instructions for the Offerors to include risks/mitigations in other Subfactors also. | Revsied paragraph L.5.2.1.1 and removed paragraph L.6.0. | ||||
| 44 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.1 (Table 3.1), L.7.2.c | |||
| M.2.3.5 | Table 3.1 specifies a maximum of 5 references, while L.7.2.c asks for Past Performance information for "up to three (3) active or completed contracts" with a provision "For less than three (3) entries, the Offeror will place N/A in the associated fields of RFP Attachment X – Past Performance Information Chart." While Section M states, "A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) from the date of this solicitation". | ||||
| Please confirm that the requirement is to submit 3 active or completed contracts. | Section M.2.3.5 updated, | ||||
| 45 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.1 (Table 3.1), L.7.2.a and L.7.2.b | Table 3.1 specifies a 3 page maximum per each PP reference. Section L.7.2 prescribes inclusion of Summary Page and Summary of Past Performance Action. Please confirm: |
1. Volume III Summary Page (L.7.2.a) is limited to 1 page for Volume III in addition to the following PP references
| 2. 1 page Summary of Past Performance Action (L.7.2.b) is for each PP reference in addition to 3 page limit for each PP reference in RFP Attachment X – Past Performance Information | Retain 3 page maximum. Revised section L.7.2(b), see hightlighted area. | ||||
| 46 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | ||||
| Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M | L.7.2.c, M.2.3.1 | Section L.7.2.c requires PP contracts to have at least one year of performance history in the past 3 years from the issuance date of the RFP, while section M.2.3.1 recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years. | |||
| Please confirm the recency definition is past 3 years from the issuance date of the RFP. | Sections L.7.2.c updated to correlate with section M.2.3.1. | ||||
| 47 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.1 (Table 3.1), L.9.0 | Please confirm that the correct title for Volume V is "Small Business Participation Submission" per L 9.0 vs the title "Subcontracting Participation Submission" listed in Table 3.1 | Updated. See highlighted area. | |
| 48 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.9.1 (b) Table 9 | Will the customer consider removing requirements of L.9.1.b and Table 9 and include only L.9.1.c and Table 9.1 considering majority of subcontracted scope is a plug (material/equipment and spares CLINS)? | Will address with Small Business Rep. | |
| 49 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L |
Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M Attch+3_PWS+Mobile+Sensors L.5.2.7, M.2.2.8; PWS 2.1.3 Section L.5.2.7 states that "The technically acceptable Quality Control Plan will become an attachment to the awarded contract" However, the requirements in L.5.2.7.1-L.5.2.7.5 and corresponding evaluation criteria in Section M.2.2.8 do not conform to DI-QCIC-81449 or PWS 2.1.3 requirements for technically acceptable Quality Program Plan (QPP) as part of the quality control (QC) program.
| Please confirm that the Offerors shall attach a DID-compliant draft QPP to Volume II Technical Capability in addition to Offeror's proposal response to requirements in Sections L.5.2.7.1-L.5.2.7.5. | Yes submit a DID compliant draft QPP. | ||||
| 50 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | ||||
| Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M | M.2.1.1; M.2.2, M.2.2.5-M.2.2.9; L.5.2.4-L.2.8, | Elements listed in M.2.1.1 seem to have additional evaluation details than the specific criteria listed in M.2.2.5-M.2.2.9. Please clarify how Offerors shall address Elements within specific reqs of sections L.5.2.4-L.2.8, and how Government will apply elements to evaluation of Subfactors. | Sections L and M are revised. See final RFP. | ||
| 51 | Solicitation - FA702220R0007 | H-2 | Section H.2(a) references ACA's which states that, Contractors should enter into Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) for any portion of the contract | ||
| requiring joint participation in the accomplishment of the Government s requirement. However, Section H.2(g) states, that the following contractors are associate contractors with whom agreements are required: None. If there are no contractors that we're required to have ACA, can the Govt explain why this clause part of the solicitation? | ACA information will be updated in Final RFP . - Remove | ||||
| 52 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | ||||
| Solicitation - FA702220R0007 | L.2.3.6 | ||||
| Section B | Section L.2.3.6 references the transition period, if awarded to other than the incumbent, will begin 01 Nov 2021 through 31 Nov 2021 and performance will start on 01 Dec 2021. We request the Government include a FFP CLIN for transition activities to the Section B. | Updated. See CLIN X009 and X010 in Final RFP. | |||
| 53 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.5.2.4.3.6 & L.5.2.4.3.7 | Section L provides instructions to provide information under L.5.2.4.3.6 and L.5.2.4.3.7; however there is no corresponding paragraph in Section M. Please clarify how the Government will apply elements to the evaluation. | Revised Section L and M. | |
| 54 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.7.2 Format for Oversize Table, Charts, Schematics, Etc. | Section L states, "Legible charts and graphs should be used where practical to depict organization and layout." Could the Government please confirm that the font size requirement for tables and graphs can be smaller than 10 pitch in width and 12pt in height? | We have revised Section L | |
| 55 | Solicitation - FA702220R0007 , |
Attch+3_PWS+Mobile+Sensors Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M Section B;
L.2.3, L.8.1.1, L.8.2 M.2.4 There are several mentions of a "MS3" and "Third Ship" in Section L and in Section B of the Solicitation. Section L.8.2 instructs Offerors to use GRAY STAR Daily Rates as the basis for the MS3/Third Ship bid rates.
| We recommend the Government consider MS3/Third Ship as "TBD" and remove it from the TEP or include a Plug Number. | L.8.2, Section 3 removed sentence stating GS rates will apply to MS3. Gray Star estimated rate will have TEP if/when MS3 is included. | ||||
| 56 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.8.1.1 | Section L.8.1.1 under FFP CLIN X008 says that the Government will provide an estimated CLIN value, however under L.8.2 Section 3.3 requires "Use GRAY STAR historical data when proposing MS3 daily rates." We recommend deleting the "Use GRAY STAR historical data when proposing MS3 daily rates." | L.8.2, Section 3 removed sentence stating GS rates will apply to MS3. | |
| 57 | Draft RFP Attachment 1, Section L | L.8.2; Section 3 (3) | Section L.8.2; Section 3 (3) states "Two daily rates shall be proposed for each program; At Sea/Foreign Ports, and U.S. Ports. Each rate will include all employees working on their respective program (GRAY STAR, COBRA KING), and will take into consideration the geographical location of each employee during their respective calendar day." Please provide a list of US Ports the Offerors are to propose daily rates for. | We have removed the Section L.8.2 | |
| 58 | Draft RFP | Section B | Section B : for CLINS 0004 (Travel) , 0005 (Material/Equipment) and 0006 (Spares), the Unit of measure is 365 days. Because the value of these CLINs are unknown, we recommend the Government change this to Plug numbers. | Final RFP will update CLINs X004, X005 & X006 to 12 MOS. | |
| 59 | Draft RFP | Section B | Due to the significant dollar value of non-fee bearing costs and considering the Government's 15% SB subcontracting goal, request the Government add a Subcontracting labor CLIN for each year of the contract. This should be a plug number as exact services are not known at this time. This CLIN will allow the application of the Contractor's indirect cost and fee. | The Final RFP has been revised. | |
| General Questions | |||||
| 61 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.9.1 | dRFP L.9.1 mentions RFP Attachment 3 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)) | ||
| dRFP Attachment 3 is PWS. Would the Government release the referenced Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD before FRFP? | Revised Small Business Participation Submission | ||||
| 62 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.3.4 | Per L.3.4 "Each volume shall contain a common master cross reference matrix (see Attachment 3) defining where the Offeror's proposal has addressed the requirements of the PWS, especially as detailed in the Risk Matrix (Attachment 5)" |
Released dRFP Attachment 5 is draft CMP and Attachment 3 is PWS
| Would the Government release the referenced Cross-Reference Matrix and Risk Matrix attachments before FRFP? | Final CMP will be in the final RFP as an exhibit. A Sample CRM has been added as an attachment to the RFP. The requirment for a risk matrix has been removed. | ||
| 63 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.7.1 - | |
| L.7.1.c | L.7.1 lists 2 attachments : RFP Attachment X – Past Performance Information Chart, and RFP Attachment X – Past Performance Information. |
| Would the Government release the referenced Past Performance Information and Past Performance Information Chart attachments before FRFP? | All mentioned documents will be released in the Final RFP. | |||
| 64 | Attch+1_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+L | L.8.2 | L.8.2 - Section 3. paragraph 3 mentions Appendix 4 of the PWS for historical information. | |
| Can Government clarify whether the referenced Appendix 4 is dRFP Attachment 3 PWS "Appendix D. Historical Data"or a different Appendix 4 Historical Information that will be released with FRFP | Updated Appendix 4 to Appendix D. Yes, App D is PWS. | |||
| 65 | Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M | M.1.1 | ||
| M.2.3.4 | M.1.1 and M.2.3.4 reference Section M paragraph II and subsequently paragraph II.D.4 Note but Section M does not have paragraph II and subsequently paragraph II.D.4 Note. | |||
| Please clarify the above reference | Section M has been revised. | |||
| 66 | Attch+2_Draft+Mobile+Sensors+Sec+M | M.2.5.1.3 | M.2.5.1.3 references paragraph M.2.7.1.3 but draft RFP Section M does not have paragraph M.2.7.1.3 | |
| Please clarify the above reference | Section M has been revised. | |||
| 67 | Attch+3_PWS+Mobile+Sensors | APPENDIX B - APPLICABLE PUBLICATIONS & INSTRUCTIONS | ||
| Appendix B states that the contractor shall acquire and | ||||
| work on the latest version of the publication and also that all publications are located in the Bidder Library/Technical Libraries - Will Government release the latest versions of these publications to the Offerors before FRFP? | All references to bidder library/technical libraries have been removed. Any documents that are beneficial to proposing on this requirement have become an attachment to the Final RFP. |
FA7022-20-R-0003
Questions & Answers
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .