Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers, Solicitation # FA4452-12-R-0001, GATES Q1: Reference Section J , Attachment 11, Workload Estimate by Task. Is it the Government’s intent that prospective bidders use these workload figures only as historical information? Are prospective bidders expected to bid their own level of effort as deemed necessary to support the requirements of the RFP for both FFP and CPFF CLINs?

The hours provided in Section J, Attachment 11 are provided as a guide to offerors to show historical information. Offerors are encouraged to submit their own level of effort as deemed necessary to support the requirements of the RFP for both the FFP and CPFF CLINs.

Q2: In paragraph 6.2.4.3 of the RFP it states: "Offerors shall be rated SEI CMMI-DEV Level 3 at time of award and throughout the life of the contract." Does that mean the prime contractor has to be SEI CMMI-DEV Level 3 or can one of the team members be SEI CMMI-DEV Level 3 and not the Prime?

Amendment 01 changed the CMMI level 3 rating from Development to Configuration Management. As such, the requirement is for SEI CMMI-CM Level 3 rating. To answer the essince of the original question while considering the revised CMMI requirement for CM and not DEV, The SEI CMMI-CM Level 3 rating is required for the company performing the Configuration Management pieces of the GATES requirement. If the prime intends to subcontract configuration management to another company as part of a teaming/subcontract arrangement, that is up to the offeror. An offeror who has a SEI CMMI-CM Level 3 rated company performing configuration management tasks would be found in compliance with paragraph 6.2.4.3 provided the offeror submitted evidence that the offeror (or company / teaming partner / subcontractor performing the configuration management task) is rated SEI CMMI-CM Level 3.

Q3: Can title pages and cross-reference matrices be excluded from the page count for each volume.

Reference RFP section L, paragraph 1.2.1 “Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, glossaries, and resumes.”

Q4: RE: paragraph 2.0, page 76: It appears that the Executive Summary does not require a glossary, a cross-reference matrix, or a list of tables and figures. Is that correct?

A cross-reference matrix is not required for the Executive Summary. Each volume, including the Executive Summary Volume, shall include information referenced in RFP section L, paragraphs 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, and 1.2.8.

Q5: RE: RFP paragraph 5.2, Section 1, page 80: It appears that the instructions do not require that Volume 5.0 – Cost/Price contain a glossary, a cross-reference matrix, or a list of tables and figures. Is that correct?

Each volume, including the Cost/Price Volume, shall include information referenced in RFP section L, paragraphs 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, and 1.2.8.

Q6: RE: RFP section M, page 88, Subfactor 2: Staffing (i): Regarding key labor category positions, this citation reads “… provide a specific resume for each person filling key personnel positions, as identified in the PWS [underline by the offeror]”. However, in the PWS, the only reference to key personnel is at paragraph 1.3.4.10.3 (no page numbers are provided) which reads, “Provide software application training for key technical personnel.” Can you please confirm whether or not the government will specify any labor categories or positions to be filled by key personnel?

RFP section, M subfactor 2: Staffing approach (i) has been amended to read, “provide a specific resume for each person filling key personnel positions, as determined by the offeror based on the offeror’s technical solution and corresponding staffing approach.” Key personnel shall be identified by the offeror based on each offeror’s unique technical approach. Since this is a performance based service acquisition, key personnel determinations may vary depending upon how an offeror proposes its technical solution and corresponding staffing approach required to implement the technical solution.

Q7: RE: RFP M, Page 88, Staffing Plan (i), regarding key personnel resumes: The RFP requires the offeror submit a resume for each position identified as key. As the page limitation is very restrictive to the content describing the technical solution, can the resumes be excluded from the page count?

Reference RFP section L, paragraph 1.2.1 “Each page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, glossaries, and resumes.”

Q8: RE: RFP L, 1.2.3 page 74 and M, 3.2.2 (5) page 77:

Can the government please clarify the instruction “[O]fferors shall provide a Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix indicating by ITO, PWS, and specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item”. For example, at what PWS level does the term “paragraph” apply (i.e., the 3-digit or “Task” level, the four-digit, or Sub-task level, or the five- or six-digit level)? (Given that the 50-page limit of the technical approach, and given the very large number of PWS elements, ITO and specification paragraphs, offerors —or economy’s sake—must know what paragraphs specifically the government expects will be addressed.

“Paragraph” applies to the lowest level of division. For example, if there is a 6-digit paragraph in the PWS (1.3.8.2.2.10) offerors shall address down to that level. All paragraphs of the PWS shall be addressed.

In the same instruction, to what document does the term “specification” apply?

The CDRL package as referenced throughout the PWS and RFP section J, Attachment 2.

Q9: Suggest that given the volume of information required by the solicitation, the page limit for the technical volume be increased to 70 pages.

RFP has been amended to increase Technical volume page limit to 90 pages. This page limit includes draft plans required to be submitted as part of the technical volume, i.e. draft Configuration Management Plan, draft Mangement Plan, draft Technical and Management Work Plan, draft Quality Program Plan.

Q10: RE: Submission of information required for Past Performance. RFP paragraph 4.1, page 76 reads in part: “Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Section J, Attachment 6.” RFP paragraph 4.2, page 77 requires that “Each offeror … submit the information shown in Section J, Attachment 6 for each relevant contract 10 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals.” Should the proper reference to the materials due 10 days prior to the proposal due date not be to Section J, Attachment 9 (the PPQ) rather than to Attachment 6?

No.

If no, can the government confirm that the offeror is required to submit the performance information in accordance with the format contained in Section J, Attachment 6, both in the proposal and 10 days before the proposal due date?

Information required in Section J, Attachment 6 shall be submitted 10 days before the proposal due date. This information is submitted NLT 10 days prior to date set for receipt of proposals, and the same information is not required to be “re-sent” at the date set for receipt of proposals.

Q11: The RFP (1.2.2) states that pricing must be submitted at the CLIN level with labor category, hours, and fully burdened rates for FFP and at the CLIN level with labor category, hours, and fully burdened rates (excluding fee) for CPFF. Later the RFP (5.2; SECTION 4) states that subtask 12 (PWS 1.3.4.12) must be priced as a separate set of labor rates for each labor category anticipated to be used for this subtask. Will all tasks/subtasks need to be individually priced or will it only need to be priced at the CLIN level?

All tasks/subtasks do not necessarily need to be individually priced. However, the details of cost/price data provided as data other than certified cost and pricing data (as required in Cost/Price volume) showing how the CLIN prices are reached will more than likely include prices for subtasks associated with each task making up each CLIN. Pricing shall be broken out to at least the task level. Work described within the “future negotiated” subtask area (PWS para 1.3.4.12) need to be individually priced on a FFP basis. These rates (as input by offeror in RFP section L, para 5.2; SECTION 4) will be used to determine prices for actual performance resulting from future negotiated tasks (as identified in PWS para 1.3.4.12)

Q12: Page 81 of the RFP asks for rates for the subtask 12 identified in the PWS paragraph 1.3.4.12, “Future Negotiate.” Is this FFP, T&M, or CPFF?

These rates shall be fully burdened FFP rates. Amendment 0002 has incorporated the sentence, “These rates shall be fully burdened FFP rates.” into RFP section L, paragraph 5.2, SECTION 4.

Q13: In the RFP there is mention of international travel. What is the quantity and duration of said international travel?

At this point, the exact amount and duration of international travel is unknown. For PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY approximately 10 trips; actual number can be less or more than 10.

Q14: Do personnel working at contractor site require Secret clearances? If so, can personnel start work with Interim Secret clearances?

Interim Secret clearances are acceptable.

Q15: Is there any GATES/WPS/DCS system, software, and testing documentation that is publicly available, or that can be made available to those preparing proposals?

This information was viewable during the bid library viewing times.

Q16: Attachment J4 includes an extensive list of GFE, however, with the information available, it is not possible to determine if the listed equipment is provided to support the development environment, test environment or production environment. Will the government confirm that all listed equipment is to be used by the development contractor for purposes of development and developer testing at the developer’s facility? If not, will the government provide the intended purpose of the listed equipment?

The equipment types are used in all areas to ensure environments mirror each other. If should be noted that the development environment is segmented between actual development and DT&E.

Q17: Para 1.3.4.9.3 and Para 1.3.4.8.4 To what degree is the software code baseline currently under automated test?

None. Software is based on triggered events/transactions.

Q18: Para 1.3.4.8.2 requires the contractor to maintain the development environment to the most current operational environment configuration, however, the current development environment is not described in the RFP. Will the government define the existing software development environment to include executive software, utilities and any other provided software intended for the contractor’s development environment?

Operational environment was viewable in the bid library. The Government does not determine executive software requirements/utilization.

Q19: Para 1.2.1 states: “The architecture also includes wireless and Automated Information Technology (AIT) capabilities to include unique specialized equipment. Current GATES specialized equipment is the Flight Information Display Systems (FIDS), mobile work stations, label printers, baggage tag printers, boarding pass printers, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag burning stations, identification card readers, kiosks, and handheld terminals. “ Can the government provide similar software details or software documentation for the GATES specialized equipment software?

This information was viewable in the bid library.

Q20: Sections J, Attachment, 11 says the transition CLIN is CLIN 0005, yet the RFP, Section B, page 5 says the transition CLIN is CLIN 0006. Can you please clarify this?

This is a typing error. Section J, Attachment 11 was amended to properly reflect the transition CLIN as CLIN 0006.

Q21: For software development and integration tasks, would you please describe the software/hardware architecture of the existing system including programming languages used and number and size of each type?

This information was viewable in the bid library

Q22: For software development, integration, and maintenance tasks, would you please describe the details of the existing databases, including type (Oracle, Sybase,etc), number of tables, triggers, stored procedures, size of database, etc?

This was viewable in the bid library; further details will have no bearing/impact to the proposal

Q23: Reference Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices, Page 2, ITEM NO 0001. Should the Quantity of 12 months be 4 months?

Updated Section B to reflect proper quantity of 4 months for CLIN 0001.

Q24: Reference Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices, Page 19, ITEM NO 5001. Should the Quantity of 12 months be 5 months?

Updated Section B to reflect proper quantity of 5 months for CLIN 5001.

Q25: Reference M002 Evaluation Factors, Page 88, b. Technical Factor, Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach, Paragraph (i). It states “However, provide a specific resume for each person filling key personnel positions, as identified in the PWS.” Can you identify the key positions and where in the PWS they are identified as indicated?

RFP section, M subfactor 2: Staffing approach (i) has been amended to read, “provide a specific resume for each person filling key personnel positions, as determined by the offeror based on the offeror’s technical solution and corresponding staffing approach.” Key personnel shall be identified by the offeror based on each offeror’s unique technical approach. Since this is a performance based service acquisition, key personnel determinations may vary depending upon how an offeror proposes its technical solution and corresponding staffing approach required to implement the technical solution.

Q26: Reference Section L, Page 77, Paragraph 3.2.4 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach. It states “Each offeror shall provide a detailed and effective staffing plan.” Does the Technical and Management Work Plan count in the page count for Volume II if it is attached as an Appendix?

RFP has been amended to increase Technical volume page limit to 90 pages. This page limit includes draft plans required to be submitted as part of the technical volume, i.e. draft Configuration Management Plan, draft Mangement Plan, draft Quality Program Plan.

Q27: There is a discrepancy on the ODC/Travel amounts in the RFP.

The ODC item numbers 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003, and 5003 (CLINS) on pages 4 through 21, total $600,000.

The Travel item numbers 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004, and 5004 (CLINS) on pages 4 through 21, total $30,000.

RFP page 80, paragraph 5.2, Section 2, states: Your proposal shall include travel estimated at $35,000 and ODCs at $700,000, IAW Section J, Attachment 12. (identified as NTEs) Can you please provide clarification on the correct amounts to bid.

Although CLINS 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003, and 5003 total $600,000 in ODC expenses, there is also an expectation that $100,000 ODC be included in each offeror’s transition period costs (CLIN 0006). As such, ODC total estimated costs are $700,000 IAW Section J, Attachment 12. Each period of performance is expected to include $100,000. Travel expenses follow the same logic.

Q28: Reference Contract Data Requirement List, Data Item No. A005, Integrated Master Schedule, Blk 12: Initial input due 30 days after contract award. Can you please provide clarification if this should read “Initial input due 30 days after start of contract.”

RFP Amendment 0002 updated CDRL A005 to read “Initial input due 30 days after contract start.”

Q29: Reference Contract Data Requirement List, Data Item No. A007, Equipment Inventory Records (EIR), Blk 10, 12 and 13: Initial input due 7 days after contract award. Can you please provide clarification if this should read “Initial input due 7 days after start of contract.”

RFP Amendment 0002 updated CDRL A007 to read “Initial input due 30 days after contract start.”

Q30: Ref. RFP Section L Pages 73 & 74 of 94, 1.2.1.1. Page Size and Format:

As stated in subparagraph (a) Pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point.

In order to avoid wasted page space, is it acceptable to use, 1.0 line spacing for paragraph titles, figure titles and captions, table titles and captions, table data, and footnotes, provided we use the prescribed 1.5 line spacing for all text paragraphs?

Adherence to the Page Size and Format limitations is required.

As stated in subparagraph (b) For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 12point. Can the font point size for tables, charts, graphs, figures, and footnotes be smaller than 12 point, as long as it is clearly legible?

Adherence to the Page Size and Format limitations is required.

Q31: The SF 33 shows that the offers are due before 4:30 PM on 06 Jun 2012. The FBO website indicates that the offers are due on May 28, 2012 4:00 pm Central. Please clarify.

RFP Amendment 0002 aligned the two dates. The SF 33 and FBO website were updated to properly reflect the proposal due date of 3:00 PM Central on 29 May 12, since 28 May 12 is a federal holiday.

Q32: Ref. RFP Section L page 78 of 94, 4.2 Early Proposal Information – Is it the Government’s intent that offerors submit Volume III–Past Performance on Sunday, 27 May 12 (10 calendar days prior to submission of the rest of their proposal (Volumes I, II, IV, & V) on 06 June 12), … Or may we deliver Volume III-Past Performance 9 days prior, NLT 1630 hrs CDT on Monday, 28 May 12?

RFP Amendment 0002 updated proposal response due date to NLT 3:00PM Central, 29 May 12. Early proposal information is due NLT 3:00PM Central, 21 May 12. Since 10 calendar days prior to 29 May 12 is a Saturday (19 May 12), the due date is moved to the next business day (21 May 12).

Q33: Ref. RFP Section L page 77 of 94, 4.1 General – Is a consent letter (Section J Attachment 7) required for each of our subcontractors whether or not we are including a separate past performance reference/PPIS for them?

A consent letter is required for subcontractors whom are proposed to perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

Q34: For task 8, subtask 4, how many times a year?

Task accomplishment is tied to release schedule.

Q35: Does the Cross Reference Matrix count against the sections or proposal page count?

The Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix will be treated as a ‘table of contents’ and will thus NOT be counted against page limitations.

Q36: Are we to submit one CD containing all of the five volumes or one CD for each volume?

Offerors shall submit one CD containing all five volumes.

Q37: Are the draft Configuration Management Plan, Phase-in Plan, and draft Quality Program Plan part of the 50 page limit for the Technical volume?

RFP has been amended to increase Technical volume page limit to 90 pages. This page limit includes draft plans required to be submitted as part of the technical volume, i.e. draft Configuration Management Plan, phase-in plan, draft Quality Program Plan.

Q38: Are Future Negotiated Tasks from PWS paragraph 1.3.4.12 to be estimated and included in the proposal?

Only the rates for performing the type of tasks identified in 1.3.4.12. are to be provided as FFP fully loaded rates. See Section L

Q39: The initial Solicitation listed the due date for proposal responses as June 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Amendment 002 (effective 10 May 2012) lists the due date for proposal responses as May 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM. Is there a particular reason why the due date was changed, especially in light of page count increase from 50 to 90 pages?

The initial solicitation was intended to require responses to the RFP by 28 May 12, as displayed on the response due date block on FBO.gov. However, the SF33 erroneously displayed a response date of 6 Jun 12. Amendment 0002 updated the SF33 to reflect the intended response date (29 May 12, since 28 May 12 is a holiday). The extension of page limitations for the technical volume came as a result of offerors’ concern regarding whether or not the draft plans (ref: Q37, Q26, and Q9) counted against page limitations. Since page limitations included these draft plans, and the concern was for an extension to the page limit, the page limit was consequently increased to 90 pages after discussion with Government technical personnel.

Q40: Section L, 6.2.4.2, Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Plan, requires the offeror to provide evidence their EVMS has been determined by the Defense Contract Management Agency (the relevant agency when the Department of Defense is the Cognizant Federal Agency per the DFARS) to be compliant with ANSI/EIA-748. The relevant DFARS section, 252.234-7002, “Earned Value Management System,” states, “(b) If this contract has a value of $50,000,000 or more, the Contractor shall use an EVMS that has been determined by the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) to be in compliance with the EVMS guidelines as stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause. If, at the time of award, the Contractor’s EVMS has not been determined by the CFA to be in compliance with the EVMS guidelines as stated in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause, the Contractor shall apply its current system to the contract and shall take necessary actions to meet the milestones in the Contractor’s EVMS plan.” (emphasis added).

Further, DFARS subpart 234.2, “Earned Value Management System,” requires EVMS for cost or incentive contracts, and “the application of earned value management is discouraged” for firm-fixed-price contracts (DFARS 234.201 (1)(iv)(A)).

In light of these requirements in the DFARS, we request the removal of the requirement in Section L, 6.2.4.2 for offerors to provide evidence their EVMS has been previously determined to be compliant with ANSI/EIA-748 by a CFA for the following reasons:

· The DFARS does not require a prior determination for contract award, making this requirement excessive;

· The requirement could be construed as discrediting determinations made by other CFAs; and,

· Based on the historic costs associated with this project, it is highly unlikely the Cost CLINs of this contract would go beyond the threshold of $50million requiring a determination by a CFA for compliance with ANSI/EIA-748.

Amendment 0003 has changed the description in Section L, paragraph 6.2.4.2 to require compliance with (1) the provision at DFARS 252.232-7001, Notice of Earned Value Management; and (2) the clause at DFARS 252.232-7002, Earned Value Management System. See Section L, paragraph 6.2.4.2 from Amendment 0003.

Q41: Section L, 6.2.4.3, SEI-CMMI – Configuration Management (CM) Level 3 Rating. According to the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), there are only three models of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI): CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV)and CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) (ref http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/solutions/?location=secondary-nav&source=652369). Configuration Management is a process area that is common among the three models, but there is not a specific appraisal (or rating) for CM. We request the Government provide further clarification on the requirement, since there is no CMMI-CM model.

Amendment 0003 has changed the description in Section L, paragraph 6.2.4.3 to require an overall rating of SEI CMMI-DEV level 2 (Managed). However, the Configuration Management component of the Support Process Area of SEI CMMI-DEV shall be performed at capability level 3 (Defined).

Q42: Re: Questions and answers, Q32: An offeror asked “Is it the Government’s intent that offerors submit Volume III–Past Performance on Sunday, 27 May 12 …?” The government responded, in part, ” the due date is moved to the next business day (21 May 12).” Please confirm that the materials due on 21 May are only (1) the Past Performance Questionnaires and (2) the information shown in Section J, Attachment 6 for each relevant contract (solicitation page 78, L, 4.2 Early Proposal Information) and not Volume III - Past Performance in its entirety (which also includes the Organizational Structure Change History, Subcontractors’ Consent Letters, and Client Authorization Letters).

The materials due for early proposal submission is only the information shown in Section J, Attachment 6 for each relevant contract. Volume III in its entirety is not required as part of the early proposal submission.

Q43: May the information required for Section J, Attachment 6 for each relevant contract (solicitation page 78, L, 4.2 Early Proposal Information) be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer?

Early proposal information may be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer/Contracting Specialist.

Q44: In RFP Section J, Attachment 4 – Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) List, the Government provides a list of GFE used in GATES. Does the contractor need to host the GATES Development and Test environment servers and other related hardware (switches, NAS, routers, power supplies, etc.) in contractor facilities? If yes, please provide the number and type of equipment that needs to be hosted at the contractor facilities as well as the End of Service Life date for this equipment . This information will enable us to estimate the rack space, power, cooling and other facility requirements.

Yes, the contractor will host GATES Development and Test Environment and other related hardware. There are approx. 1016 equipment items. An Inventory List of equipment the contractor shall be responsible for maintaining has been posted along with Amendment 0003.

Q45: To assist in providing a more accurate cost and level of effort estimate, could the Government provide the system metrics below each major subsystem or system component in scope:

a) The average number of helpdesk tickets or verbal/written requests for assistance received each month?

b) Is there a peak time period within a day when requests for assistance are received?

c) Number of programs/Lines of Code by programming language such as Java.

d) Number of Sybase/Oracle Stored Procedures

e) Number of tables in production Sybase and Oracle

f) Number of maintenance releases done in the past 12 months and the number of small/medium/large fixes implemented.

g) Number of open Software Problem Reports.

h) Number of screens

i) Number of requirements

j) Number of Baseline Change Requests yet to be implemented

k) Number of test scenarios

l) Number of test cases for manual execution

m) Number of test scripts for automated execution Not relevant to solicitation. Contractor is expected to have an understanding of the program and available expertise to perform the specific tasks outlined in the PWS without having the exact numbers for the items listed in the level of effort metrics.

Q46: In order to estimate the level of effort required for asset management, could the Government please provide the approximate number of assets that need to be under tracked and managed by the contractor.

Approx. 1016 equipment items. Amendment 0003 has posted an Inventory List.

Q47: Is maintenance of the GATES server hardware, patch management, system administration, database administration including backup and restores , server network administration and other related System Administration functions in scope of this contract?

Yes, as outlined in the PWS.

Q48: Amendment 1 changed the CMMI level from CMMI-DEV Level 3 to SEI CMMI-CM Level 3. CM is an element of a key process, it is not a model. Please clarify.

Amendment 0003 has changed the description in Section L, paragraph 6.2.4.3 to require an overall rating of SEI CMMI-DEV level 2 (Managed). However, the Configuration Management component of the Support Process Area of SEI CMMI-DEV shall be performed at capability level 3 (Defined). The foundation of CMMI is processes. Configuration Management (CM) is aligned under the support area and Level 3 is required for CM.

Q49: Please confirm the offeror’s organization or division certified in the CMMI appraisal MUST perform the GATES development support in order to conform to SEI guidelines expressed in Section 1.1.4 of the SEI Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A, Version 1.3: Method Definition Document. Is this correct? If so, how do you wish for the offeror to provide evidence that the specific appraised division will perform the work?

Yes, this is correct. It is up to the vendor to provide specific evidence that the appropriate division will be performing the work. We cannot tell them how to align resources within their management plan as it is an evaluation criteria/determinant.

Q50: Reference, Cost or Price Factor.

“The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for phase-in, base period, and all options.” How does the Government intend to ensure a fair competition when the incumbent will most likely not have phase-in costs?

Although there is a perceived inherent advantage for the incumbent with respect to phase-in costs, a determination has been made that the perception does not create an actual advantage.

Q51: The cover letter issued as Section J Attachment 10 to the referenced RFP was not reissued as part of Amendment 2 to reflect the new time that the proposal is due. Is it permissible for offerors to change the dates and other text to reflect the information provided as the response to Q32 of the Q&A, which states:

Q: Ref. RFP Section L page 78 of 94, 4.2 Early Proposal Information – Is it the Government’s intent that offerors submit Volume III–Past Performance on Sunday, 27 May 12 (10 calendar days prior to submission of the rest of their proposal (Volumes I, II, IV, & V) on 06 June 12), … Or may we deliver Volume III-Past Performance 9 days prior, NLT 1630 hrs CDT on Monday, 28 May 12?

A: RFP Amendment 0002 updated proposal response due date to NLT 3:00PM Central, 29 May 12. Early proposal information is due NLT 3:00PM Central, 21 May 12. Since 10 calendar days prior to 29 May 12 is a Saturday (19 May 12), the due date is moved to the next business day (21 May 12).

Offerors have permission to insert into the PPQ Cover Letter, the specific date by which the Early Proposal Information is due. However, it is not required that offerors insert the date. Amendment 0003 changed the proposal response due date to NLT Monday, 4 Jun 12, 2:00 PM Central. With this new proposal response deadline, Early Proposal Information is now due by NLT Friday, 25 May 12, 2:00 PM Central.

Q52: The formatting of the Past Performance Information Sheet (Section J, Attachment 6 of the referenced RFP) is in a smaller font than the required 12 point, and some sections do not have 1.5 line spacing. Is the PPIS considered part of the exception in L.1.2.1.1 (“Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, , the text size shall be no less than 12 point.”) or should it conform to the 12 pt, 1.5 line spacing required for the remainder of the proposal?

The PPIS is considered part of the exception in L.1.2.1.1.