The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
| J-11 Pre-Award Audit |
| This attachment request that the team member annotate the "Percentage of work you anticipated to performing". This is difficult to stipulate since there are no sample Task orders and this is a TO based IDIQ. We have formed Teaming Agreements with all of our subcontractor / teammates to address this issue. Can it be stated "In Accordance with Teaming Agreement"? If not, how do you recommend we provide this estimate? |
Offerors should list the anticipated work to be performed based on competencies outlined in PWS. The Government understands that the number is provided for informational purposes.
| J-3 |
| Does AMC wish to receive one Attachment J-3, containing one set of maximum rates that will be used for the offeror including all of its team subcontractors? Or should we also submit a separate Attachment J-3 for each team subcontractor? |
| The Government requires a single Pricing Proposal. The rates included in the pricing matrix will be used for the prime, Team members and all subcontractors. The Government will not evaluate a secondary Price Matrix. |
| Section L.3.5 |
| Section L.3.5 states, "The Offeror shall provide General and |
Administrative (G&A) and Material Handling costs for supporting Travel and all Other Direct Cost (ODC) items." Should we submit these costs for each team subcontractor as well?
See #22 response.
| Section L3.2 |
| In Volume 1 - Price, does AMC wish to receive a Total Compensation Plan not only for the prime offeror but also for each team subcontractor? |
| See #22 response. |
| Section L4.2.3, page 69 |
| Very few task orders within a single award IDIQ contract cover the broad spectrum of the AMC A&AS PWS. Will the Government allow the use of an entire single award IDIQ contract as one past performance citation? |
| The Government will allow the use of an entire single award IDIQ contract as one past performance citation. Offerors should ensure that the questionnaire is filled out by a party capable of rating the base contract performance. Offeror is responsible for providing sufficient detail as to types of work performed under referenced contract to ensure that the Government can accurately determine relevancy. |
| Section L.4.2.4 |
| Past Performance Questionnaire. Request clarification for contracts that have ended (still within the three year relevancy criteria), but current contracting officer and program manager(s) (or other applicable personnel) will not fill out the past performance questionnaire because they do not know the company work with that specific contract because these personnel (contracting officer and program managers) were not involved with the execution of the contract work which ended two years ago. So can this company have the former program manager fill out the questionnaire even though he is not currently in that position (he retired and has since taken a GS position at Scott AFB)? |
| It is acceptable to receive the PP from Prior QAP/PM etc, provide that the past performance questionnaire has been sent from the respective program or contracting office. This is to ensure that the Government is able to sufficiently obtain the questionnaire without undue contact with the rater and without proper notification to the respective office responsible for subject contract. |
| Section L.4.2.4 |
| Confidentiality of Sources prohibits offerors from contacting |
sources of past performance information. The RFP requires offerors to send Past Performance Questionnaires to our sources and track their responses. Please clarify the process. Should we send our Questionnaires to the source selection Contracting Officer for forwarding to our sources, and should we request tracking information from the source selection Contracting Officer? Or is it acceptable for the offeror to notify the sources that we are sending questionnaires, alert them to the submittal deadline, and follow up with them to track their progress?
It is acceptable for the offeror to follow up with respective office for completion tracking purposes provided content is not discussed.
| Amendment 0001 |
| In the Amendment 0001 Appendix B-1, System Engineer Labor Category was eliminated by the Amendment. Was this intentional? |
| System Engineer was omitted erroneously and has been re-inserted into subject PWS. |
| Solicitation Questions and Answers dated 4_13_11, Number 8 |
| For the Rationale section added to L.5.1, it currently states that the summary should be no more than several pages in length. We are unclear about this page limit? |
| There is no page limit for any items listed in this section. |
| Appendix B-1, Amendment 1 |
| -AMC SKILL SET LEVELS – Would you consider modifying the experience levels and educational requirements? The high levels of experience called out drive a higher rate for the entry and intermediate category than would otherwise be necessary. |
| The education and experience levels clearly state “Desired” to indicate the Governments preferences related to skill levels. Desired does not mean required. |
| PWS Appendix B-1 |
| Would you also consider a tradeoff between experience and education giving credit for additional experience above the requirement toward the education requirement? |
See #30 response.
| Attachment J-11 |
| Does the prime and all team members have to fill-out this form and submit as part of the IDIQ proposal? We assume yes, but request clarification. |
| Audit information should be received from the prime and subcontractors. |
| Attachment J-13 |
| Attachment J-13 (DOL EEOC Clearance Request Information). Question – Does the prime only have to fill-out this form and submit as part of the IDIQ proposal? |
| The prime only need complete this form. |
| Attachment J-5 |
| As we prepare our Past Performance Volume for subject solicitation we are concerned about Attachment J-5, MEMORANDUM FOR QUESTIONNAIRE POCs, as it |
appears to suggest FA4452-11-R-0013-AMC Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS)the memo as written should be attached to the questionnaires and forwarded to the various POCs.
Our position is that the memo as written is only a guide for Offerors to use in soliciting evaluations from the various POCs to whom questionnaires are sent and that the Offerors should be the requestors, not the CO.
Please advise if our interpretation is correct in that the memo is only a guide to be used by Offerors.
Per Section L4.2.4, The intention is that offerors include a letter of their own design, though they may submit the letter provided if they see fit.
The letter provided as attachment J-5 can be used if the offeror wishes, though it may be in the company’s best interest to tailor the letter to suit their specific request.
| Section L4.2.5 |
| Question: Are alternate past performance assessments supposed to be submitted in our proposal? |
| Alternate past performance assessments are not to be included in the proposal. An indication should be placed on the PPID that an Alternate form of annual assessment was used. |
| Section B |
| Please confirm the offeror is not required to fill in the prices and quantities in Section B. If we are to fill section B, please provide instructions. |
| Offerors are to complete Attachment J-3 Pricing Matrix in lieu of Schedule in Section B. |
| Section L2.2.1 |
| Section L2.2.1 refers to a skill set matrix not counting toward the page limitations. The only other reference to a skill set matrix is found in L3.4, referring to the Government-provided skill set matrix. Are offerors to include the government's skill set matrix in the proposal? |
| This reference to skill set matrix will be removed to prevent confusion. Offerors are not expected to include the Governments skill set matrix in the proposal. |
| PWS |
| The PWS table of contents lists paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, but the PWS only contains paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, omitting privacy act and GFE requirements. Is the PWS complete? |
| 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the PWS table of contents has been removed. |
| Section L |
| Paragraphs L5.3.1, L5.3.2, L5.3.3, L5.3.4, L5.3.5, and attachments J-11 - J-13 require submissions from the offeror. Is each of these submissions required for subcontractors/teaming partners as well? |
| J-11 and J-12 are required for all team members and J-13 is required for the prime only. |
| Section L5.3.1 |
| Section L5.3.1 requires the offeror to provide a "county and facility code" in addition to a CAGE code. Please clarify "county and facility code"? |
| Requirements for county and facility code have been removed. |
| Section F |
| CLINS 1003, 1004, 2003, 2004, 3003, 3004, 4003, 4004, appear to have an incorrect POP. |
| These periods have been revised per Amendment 0002. |
| Section F |
| Should CLINS 4001-4009 POP extend to 31 Dec 2017? |
| The Performance Periods listed on the CLINs are their respective ordering periods. Should a task order be issued at the end of the ordering period for CLINS numbered 4001-4009, the performance period will be indicated on the task order level. |
| Section B |
| Section B states "Pricing for any extension of services will be based on the pricing table for the applicable period (inclusive dates) of performance." However J-3 Pricing Rate Schedule for Option Period 4 only extends to 30 June 2016. Should the rate period in attachment J-3 extend to 31 Dec 2017 or will successful offerors be able to revise their rates for the extended period of performance beyond the ordering period? |
| Any task order issued within Option Period 4 will be issued using the pricing for that ordering period. This does mean that the pricing for the final option year will be used for up to 18 months past 30 June 2016. |
| Section L4.2.4 |
| A partner wishes to use a PP that is primed by a company who we believe is competing on another team for one of the spots on this IDIQ. According to the instructions for past performance questionnaires, , “To avoid potential conflicts, Offerors are exempt from sending Past Performance Questionnaires to other potential competitors of this acquisition. In this situation, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to find an alternative method of providing the Government the same or similar information.” What are the ramifications if this competitor did actually fill out the PP Questionnaire? Would it be thrown out? |
The Government is unable to use Past Performance Questionnaires completed by potential competitors as a conflict of interest is present, thereby rendering the information unacceptable.