QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 2.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #2

TO

RFP FA8224-11-R-0005

1. The new PWS has an item in its Table of Contents for Appendix C, Safety, Fire Protection and Health Specification Industrial (sic) Safety on page 11 however no such appendix is included in the PWS. In the absence of the Appendix, please describe the responsibilities of the bidder in this regard.

A: Appendix C is no longer in the Performance Work Statement. Please see the corrected

PWS without Appendix C in the Table of Contents.

2. In amendment 6, the 1st Option period changed to 12 months from 6 (now CLIN0101) however CLIN0003 then adds yet another 6 month potential for 30 months total. This is chronologically supported by the Section F delivery information and accordingly currently required to be included for pricing. However, both fully included RFP FAR Clauses 52.217-8 and 52.219-28 state that a total extension shall not exceed 6 months. Further, the answer to amendment 6 Q7 indicates “an option year”. If the Q&A answer is correct, this suggests that both of the referenced clauses are incorrect (should be 12 months) and CLIN0003 should be removed altogether. Please clarify.

A: The CLIN structure on the solicitation is correct. FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to

Extend Services, pertains to CLIN 0003 when it is in the Government’s interest to extend services after the contract term ends (i.e. after the Option Year CLINs). FAR Clause

52.217-8 states that the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, pertains to

Option CLINs 0101 and 0102. The Government may extend the term of the contract (after the base period of performance term) within the limitations stated in this clause. The

“shall not exceed 24 months” stated within FAR 52.217-9 for this requirement is the total amount of months for the duration of the contract (to include the Option Year CLINs). In this case, there is only one option year to extend the term.

3. To best ensure clarity in the government’s intention and as there is no contextual information in the PWS regarding the specific purpose of the inclusion of the new Appendix B, how should the bidders interpret the content, in particular, with regard to workload for fixed price proposal sizing purposes? Does this indicate the government believes the effort to be 12 engineering labor months (for each the base and option period) or is this again simply restating the period of performance?

A: Appendix B is deleted in the Performance Work Statement. Please see corrected version of the PWS.

4. The PWS requires the development of an SRS that appears contrasted with the other specification documents however it is not called out as a CDRL. For the other documents the

PWS language seems clear that the intent is for the bidders to plan to only provide change input to the government that the development contractor may subsequently implement. Is it proper for bidders to assume this same approach is true for the SRS and there is no requirement to formally develop it?

A: Yes, the deliverable in the context of requirements are change request suggestions similar to the SSDD change requests, but in this requirement we are making change request to the requirement database managed by the current contractor from the Los

Angeles AFB Block I contract. There are no expectations to deliver a complete SRS; the contractor under Los Angeles AFB Block I contract owns the requirements.

5. There is no information that gives a bidder a reasonable indication of how many specifications there are to engineer, how complete or what state each is in (and thus the level of effort required to complete it), and perhaps most importantly, what criteria determines when each is “complete”. Based on this limited information regarding scale of the solicited effort one may bid 0.5 FTE and another 10 FTE as no solicitation information sufficiently indicates the starting point or defines the end product success criteria. This critical info will only be available to those associated with program now or teamed with an incumbent development contractor but is necessary for an independent bidder to develop sizing to bid this as a firm fixed price, fixed level of effort. Will you please provide adequate information for sizing purposes within the solicitation?

A: The Government estimated 1,920 hours per year for this requirement. This is only an estimate.

6. After months of consideration and review of the most recent amendment the procurement appears to be much more suited to a cost-based contract given the inability of the government to provide sufficient information for a bidder to adequately size the amount of effort to update and incorporate an unknown number of documents/models that are in unknown states and to do so to some undefined level of completion by the 12/31/11 bidder’s library formalization date. It is our opinion that without direct insight to each document/model library’s current state no bidder will be able to support sizing assumptions (for an FFP) thus setting the procurement up for a sure protest and therefore virtually assuring more delays. If the government must continue with an

FFP procurement for these services we suggest the government reconsider the price evaluation approach and dramatically reduce the risk of protests based on lack of consistently available sizing information by stipulating/directing a specific level-of-effort (number of full-time-engineers or base year hours) if indeed this is already understood. Would you please clarify/consider?

A: The number of documents under review by respondents are two (T&C and MPS). Yes, the number of change recommendations is unknown and up to the engineering staff/team as a whole (Prime, Government and awardee for this requirement). Each change recommendation will be reviewed by the Government for accuracy and consistency to make sure the T&C and MPS changes are consistent with the other subsystem changes being made under the Los Angeles AFB Block I contract and existing government staff members on the other scheduled subsystems. Please see answer to Question #5 for

Government estimated amount of hours.

7. The answer to RFP Amendment 006 question 35 indicates that the intent of this solicitation is focused on bidder’s library completion by 12/31/11. What then is the work scope and scale after

12/31/11? More specifically, what work scope applies that would allow a bidder to size the required effort from December 31, 2011 through April 24, 2012?

A: The work required under this solicitation will assist the bidder’s library deadline for

Los Angeles AFB Program/Procurement offices. However, the requirement still exists for the 309 th

Maintenance Wing (requiring activity) to establish the library documentation based on the requirements stated in the revised performance work statement. The scope does not change from 31 December 2011 through 24 April 2012. The scope is the same for the base year period of performance plus option line items.