Questions Responses - Amendment 2.doc
DOC document 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA2517-08-R-9000
About this file
Questions and Responses for Amendment 2
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 347 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Amendment 2
Questions & Answers
1. Question: The due date on the DD254 is different than that on the RFP; does the Government intend to issue a new DD254 before proposal submission or as part of the contract award?
Answer: See corrected page 1 of DD 254.
2. Question: On page 24 of 26 of the MW/MD task order there is duplicated areas with GFP, Security Requirements, and Records Management, which areas should be addressed?
Answer: See corrected MW/MD PWS.
3. Question: Section I, 5352.237-9001 Requirements affecting contractor personnel performing mission essential services, page 24 of 55, does not mention submission of a Contingency Plan as 21 CONS requires now on another IDIQ contract. Will task order Contingency Plans be required if personnel are designated "Mission Essential Contractor personnel" in the PWS?
Answer: See page 9 of revised CSMC PWS, Attachment 1 to Section J. Also, see Attachment 8, example Contingency Plan template.
4. Question: Section H-7, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) (page 14) Section H-7.B.2 requires “contractors shall use the form listed in Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments to provide the initial disclosure with the task order proposal." We could not locate this form in Section J or as an attachment to the RFP. Would the Government please clarify this requirement?
Answer: See revised Section H-7 and Section J, Attachment 9.
5. Question : Attachment L-6, Past Performance Citation Information In the narrative description section, the second bullet lists “Compliance with Limitations of Subcontracting.” Is it the Government’s intent that only the prime offeror address this or should subcontractors also include this information in their citations?
Answer: See revised Attachment L-6.
6. Question: Reference: RFP Attachment 5 contains “Section L Attachments.” One Section L Attachment is L-8. We are unable to find a reference to Attachment L-8 in the RFP. In addition, the second page of Attachment L-8 contains a banner which reads, “****Not to be released outside Government Channels****” Is there a role for Attachment L-8? It appears most of the information it requests is contained also in Attachment L-9.
Answer: See revision at RFP Section L-8C.8.a. and at Attachment L-8.
7. Question: Is there a requirement that questionnaires are “Not to be released outside Government Channels?” If so, this is problematic in that some questionnaires must go directly to Prime contractors who are outside Government channels.
Answer: See revision/clarification at Attachment L-8.
8. Question: Reference: RFP L-9H5. Probable Subcontractors; Page 43 of 55. The reference implies the Government only wants a list of proposed probable subcontractors who will be bid on one of the two awardable task orders. We have some subcontractors who are on the Team, but will not be bid on either of the two awardable task orders. Would the Government like them to be included on the list?
Answer: For cost/pricing purposes, the information is only required for those subcontractors/ team members who are proposed to do the work on either of the two task orders.
9. Question: Attachment L-5, Team Relevancy Matrix, labels the first relevancy area as “Overall Contract Management, Subcontracting, & Cost (Prime only).” Please clarify if the first relevancy area in the Team Relevancy Matrix should be “Contract Management” to match the relevancy criteria in Section M.
Answer: Yes, see revision at Attachment L-5.
10. Question: Since the DUNS number is already included in the Past Performance Information (PPI) sheets and the prime offeror and each team member/subcontractor are required to provide at least one PPI, does that satisfy this requirement? Or does the Government want a separate listing within the Past Performance Volume?
Answer: No, this is sufficient.
11. Question: Sec M, Para M-4.B (pg 48). RFP states: Following basic contract award, technical ratings as defined in M-1C.1. shall be applied to individual TOs for determination of individual task order awards. Recommend change “technical ratings” to “Mission Capability Ratings” to match terminology in M-1.D.1 Answer: See revised RFP.
12. Question: MW/MD PWS. Table of Contents does not match content of PWS.
Answer: Updated Table of Contents; see revised MW/MD PWS.
13. Question: MW/MD PWS, Page 24, second set of Paras 1.3.8.4 , 1.3.8.5, 1.8.3.5.1, 1.3.8.5.2 and 1.3.8.6. These paragraphs duplicate numbers on the previous page and are not associated with Requirement 8 but rather with Requirement 6. Recommend moving these paragraphs under Requirement 6 and renumber accordingly.
Answer: See revised PWS.
14. Question: RFP Letter, SF 33, Section L, Section G-3. Suite number and zip code for the Contracting Officer are different in different sections of the RFP.
RFP Letter – Suite 1240, Zip 80914
SF 33 – Zip 80914-1385
Section L – Suite 1240
Section G-3 – Suite 1055, Zip 80914-1117 Please clarify the address for the Contracting Officer.
Answer: See revision at Section G-3.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .