Questions and Answers 21 Jun 12.doc

Questions and Answers – FA4452-12-R-0003 EOD Support Services

Questions as of 1 Jun 2012

Q1: The RFP does not identify which MAJCOMs or separate funding bases belong to which CLIN. The RFP shows CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 as “EOD support Services IAW the PWS” and each of these has a sub-CLIN with OCONUS relocation for 13 locations (0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003), however, there are only two OCONUS MAJCOMS. The PWS attachment 2 shows 11 MAJCOMS w/ locations, plus an EOD MAJCOM support locations list. Which MAJCOMs or separate funding bases belong to which CLIN?

A1: This contract is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract type. Per RFP Addendum 52.212-1 para 3.2(b) the offeror shall insert prices for each FFP CLIN provided. This price should be the total amount for support of all EOD locations included in Appendix 1 – EOD Locations and Equipment. CLINs X002, X003 and X004 included a NTE amount set by the government and are not to be priced by the offeror. Additionally, per RFP Addendum 52.212-1 para 3.3 Pricing Support Documentation the offeror shall provide a breakdown of price segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and then a total price for each MAJCOM as specified in solicitation Appendix 1 – EOD Locations and Equipment. PWS Attachment 2 provides a list of each location and which MAJCOM they fall under. Additionally, this attachment includes a listing of MAJCOM HQ locations that require support.

Q2: Writing to inquire about the number of PPISs to be submitted for the subject solicitation. Understand the total of PPISs for the entire team should equal 10. Also, see that we should include 2 from our team members. Our team is comprised of only us (as prime offeror) and one other team member - is the team member limited to 2 PPISs in this case or can they submit additional PPISs? Is there a specific breakdown or percentage that should be from the prime offeror?

A2: Per RFP Addendum 52.212-1 para 5.3,”include information on 2 recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners and significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort”. The intent is for there to be at least two PPISs from each teaming partner(s) and/or significant subcontractor(s) but no more than 10 PPISs total per team/offeror.

Questions as of 6 Jun 2012

Q3: The use of Appendix 1 (EOD Locations and Equipment) should be utilized to determine total number of contractors for each location identified in Attachment 2 of the PWS.

A3: As this is performance based and multiple staffing/technical approaches are possible, Appendix 1 is a tool to help the offeror determine the scope and complexity of the effort.

Q4: Appendix 1 (EOD Locations and Equipment) and Attachment 2 of PWS do not have same number of locations and leads us to believe that Appendix 1 has been inserted as a supporting document for Attachment 2.

A4: These two documents have been updated in Amendment 1 to the solicitation to ensure they are consistent.

Q5: In para 5.2 of the RFP, the direction provided is to send PPQs to "points of contact the offeror has listed in the PPIS". There are three POCs: (1) Program Manager, (2) Contracting Officer, (3) Administrative Contracting Officer. The same paragraph states that a maximum of 10 PPQs will be evaluated per team. If we send PPQs to all of these POCs, there is a significant chance that multiple PPQs for a single PPIS will be received (since they will be reviewed in order of receipt), meaning some PPISs will not represented. The question is: can we limit the PPQ to one POC per PPIS (e.g., send only to the Program Manager) to ensue all PPISs are represented?

A5: This language has been updated and the limit on 10 PPQs has been omitted.

Q6: ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Q6(a) Is section 2.0 missing?

A6(a): This section was omitted prior to RFP release.

Q6(b) 2.2.5 Indexing states: Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Are Tabs excluded from page count?

A6(b): Tabs do not count as part of the page limits.

Q6(c) 4.2.2 Volume Organization – prescribes a general outline that includes a List of Table and Drawings. Are Lists of Table and Drawings excluded from page count?

A6(d): Lists of tables and drawings are excluded from the page count.

Q6(e): 5.2 Early Proposal Information – requests offerors complete Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). For two of our team members they have performed work for a single Government customer that is identical but is performed on two different contracts by two different contracting agencies. Request guidance if the Government desires a single PPIS with both agencies contracting data identified and separate PPQs to the respective contracting agencies. If so, request additional pages to accommodate the combined information, or does the Government desire separate PPIS and separate PPQs.

A6(e): Separate PPIS and separate PPQs should be submitted for each contract.

Q7: ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

52.212-2 Para C (2). Evaluation Process, b. Relevancy Assessment states – Past performance of prime contractor, teaming contractor and subcontractor will be evaluated in the aggregate with all being of equal importance to one another.

52.212-2 Para C(3) Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, subcontractors, or teaming partners that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. These two assessment criteria appear to be in conflict regarding rating of prime and subcontractor past performance, request clarification.

A7: This language has been updated in 52.212-2 para C (3) to revise any inconsistencies.

Q8: PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

PWS Para 1.2.5 EOD MAJCOM Support – subparagraphs are numbered 1.2.5.1 and then 1.2.5.2.1 – 1.2.5.2.9. Did the Government intend for numbering to be 1.2.5.1.1 – 1.2.5.1.9.

A8: Numbering was updated in the PWS.

Questions as of 12 Jun 2012

Q9: Reference: RFP spreadsheet, “Appendix 1-EOD Locations and Equipment_29 May 12” (See below TABLE) Q9(a): AFMC’s Tinker AFB, OK and PACAF’s Kunsan AB and Osan AB in S. Korea are listed in the spreadsheet at Appendix 1 as EOD Technical Service Support locations. However, Tinker AFB, OK; Kunsan AB, S. Korea; and Osan AB, S. Korea are NOT listed in PWS Attachment 1 as “Potential Travel Locations” NOR are they listed in PWS Attachment 2 as EOD Technical Service Support locations.

QUESTION: Should AFMC’s Tinker AFB, OK and PACAF’s Kunsan AB and Osan AB in S. Korea be included in PWS Attachments 1 and 2 or should some or all be deleted from RFP Appendix 1?

A9(a): RFP Appendix 1 and the PWS Attachment 2 have been updated to correct inconsistencies between the two documents. Attachment 1 to the PWS has been removed to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. Travel requested and approved by the government will be approved and reimbursed through a Cost Reimbursable CLIN on the contract per PWS para.4.4 Travel and Other Direct Costs.

Q9(b): AFRC’s Warner-Robins AFB GA is listed in PWS Attachment 2 as an EOD Technical Service Support location. However it is NOT listed in the spreadsheet at Appendix 1 NOR is it listed in PWS Attachment 1 as a “Potential Travel Location.”

QUESTION: Does Warner-Robins AFB GA need EOD Technical Service Support and should it be added to the RFP Spreadsheet at Appendix 1 and added to PWS Attachment 1 as a “Potential Travel Location”?

A9(b): RFP Appendix 1 and the PWS Attachment 2 have been updated to correct inconsistencies between the two documents. Attachment 1 to the PWS has been removed to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. Travel requested and approved by the government will be approved and reimbursed through a Cost Reimbursable CLIN on the contract per PWS para.4.4 Travel and Other Direct Costs.

Q9(c): AFMC’s Wright-Patterson AFB OH is listed in the spreadsheet titled “Appendix 1-EOD Locations and Equipment_29 May 12” BUT listed in BOLD in Attachment 2 as if it is a heading for AFMC EOD Technical Service Support locations. Wright-Patterson is also NOT listed in PWS Attachment 1 as a “Potential Travel Location.”

QUESTION: Does Wright-Patterson AFB OH need EOD Technical Service Support and should it be added to PWS Attachment 1 as a “Potential Travel Location”?

A9(c): RFP Appendix 1 and the PWS Attachment 2 have been updated to correct inconsistencies between the two documents. Attachment 1 to the PWS has been removed to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. Travel requested and approved by the government will be approved and reimbursed through a Cost Reimbursable CLIN on the contract per PWS para.4.4 Travel and Other Direct Costs.

Q10: Reference: PWS Attachments 1 and 2 (See below TABLE) Q10(a): AFRC’s Warner-Robins AFB GA is listed in Attachment 2 as an EOD Technical Service Support location. Warner-Robins AFB GA is NOT listed in “Appendix 1-EOD Locations and Equipment_29 May 12” NOR in Attachment 1 “Potential Travel Locations*” QUESTION: Does Warner-Robins AFB GA need EOD Technical Service Support and should it be listed in “Appendix 1-EOD Locations and Equipment_29 May 12” and in PWS Attachment 1?

A10(a): RFP Appendix 1 and the PWS Attachment 2 have been updated to correct inconsistencies between the two documents. Attachment 1 to the PWS has been removed to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. Travel requested and approved by the government will be approved and reimbursed through a Cost Reimbursable CLIN on the contract per PWS para.4.4 Travel and Other Direct Costs.

Q10(b): AFMC’s Wright-Patterson AFB OH is listed in “Appendix 1-EOD Locations and Equipment_29 May 12” BUT listed in BOLD in Attachment 2 as if it is a heading for AFMC EOD Technical Service Support locations. Wright-Patterson AFB OH is NOT listed in Attachment 1 “Potential Travel Locations*” QUESTION: Does Wright-Patterson AFB OH need EOD Technical Service Support and should it be listed in Attachment 1 “Potential Travel Locations*”?

A10(b): RFP Appendix 1 and the PWS Attachment 2 have been updated to correct inconsistencies between the two documents. Attachment 1 to the PWS has been removed to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. Travel requested and approved by the government will be approved and reimbursed through a Cost Reimbursable CLIN on the contract per PWS para.4.4 Travel and Other Direct Costs.

Q10(c): Tinker AFB, OK; Kunsan AB, S. Korea; and Osan AB, S. Korea are NOT listed in PWS Attachment 1 as “Potential Travel Locations” NOR are they listed in PWS Attachment 2 as EOD Technical Service Support locations.

QUESTION: Should all three based be listed in both PWS Attachments 1 and 2?

A10(c): RFP Appendix 1 and the PWS Attachment 2 have been updated to correct inconsistencies between the two documents. Attachment 1 to the PWS has been removed to avoid confusion and inconsistencies. Travel requested and approved by the government will be approved and reimbursed through a Cost Reimbursable CLIN on the contract per PWS para.4.4 Travel and Other Direct Costs.

Table Depicting Issues Addressed in Questions 1 and 2

EOD Locations & Equipment PWS Attachment 1 Potential Travel Locations PWS Attachment 2 EOD Technical Service Support locations.

Q11: Reference PWS section Page 16, “EOD MAJCOM Support Locations” at bottom of the page.

The list of “EOD MAJCOM Support Locations” at the bottom of PWS Page 16 includes the following: HQ ACC, AFCENT, DET 63, CoBRA/SFES, HQ AMC, HQ USAFE, and HQ PACAF. However, this list does not include the following MAJCOM HQs: AFDW, AFMC, AETC, AFSPC, AFSOC, AFRC, and GSC.

QUESTION: What is the significance of this separate list of seven “EOD MAJCOM Support Locations” since these seven locations are also listed in the MAJCOM grouping of locations that starts on Page 15 and ends on Page 16 just above the row titled, “EOD MAJCOM Support Locations”? Are extra EOD personnel required for these seven locations in addition to the same locations being listed in the grouping of locations for EOD Technical Support?

A11: Attachment 2 to the PWS has been updated so that all locations needing EOD support are listed under their respective MAJCOMs including the HQ EOD locations.

Q12: Reference: RFP Draft Spreadsheet titled, “Appendix 1-EOD Locations and Equipment_29 May 12” QUESTION: What is the historic EOD support Level of Effort (LOE) for each Air Force location requiring EOD technical support and EOD MAJCOM support as part of this solicitation?

A12: This is a performance based requirement. RFP Appendix 1 – EOD Locations and Equipment was provided for offerors to have a means to determine the level of support needed based on the PWS requirements and equipment located at each EOD flight.

Q13: Reference: PWS 1.2.2.6: Need to clarify the criteria for “…guaranteeing all vehicles are serviced and maintained…” Suggest “guaranteeing” be changed to “to track that” as shown below.

…. and coordinate with the squadron and vehicle maintenance section of logistics (supply and equipment) guaranteeing all vehicles are serviced and maintained within AF standards IAW Air Force Equipment Management System (AFEMS), ….

…. and coordinate with the squadron and vehicle maintenance section of logistics (supply and equipment) to track that all vehicles are serviced and maintained within AF standards IAW Air Force Equipment Management System (AFEMS), ….

Rationale: The contractor cannot guarantee the vehicles are properly serviced and maintained unless the contractor services and maintains the vehicles as part of this contract. The contractor can only report on the status of the vehicles by tracking reports from the squadron and vehicle maintenance section of logistics.

A13: PWS para 1.2.2.6 has been updated to included the suggested language for clarity.

Q14: Reference PWS 2.0 and QASP Service Summary Tables (See attached Table with Tracked Changes)

Q14(a): Reference 1st Row titled: “Minutes as prescribed by this PWS” PWS Para: Change references to PWS 1.2.4.3 and PWS 1.2.4.4 vice PWS 1.2.4 Performance Threshold: Change to read, “Contractor shall prepare draft and deliver draft for Government approval no later than the 5th working day following close of the conference/meeting Contractor shall distribute Government approved documents no later than the 3trd working day after receipt of Government approval, with no more than two instances where documents are submitted beyond the required delivery date.”

Delete: following close of meeting Rationale: Consistency with PWS 1.2.4.4 and to specify the PWS subsections that address “minutes.”

A14(a): QASP, PWS updated in regards to meeting minutes.

Q14(b): Reference 2nd Row titled: “Document Library updated/maintained … PWS” Performance Threshold: Change to read, “Data Accession Lists shall be updated no later than the 15th of every month with no more than two instances where the Data Accession Lists are updated beyond the required date.”

Delete: All deliverables shall be in accordance with an agreed schedule or in accordance with the terms of the contract with no more than two deliverables per month not being delivered on time. Late deliverables shall be submitted not later than one working day beyond the agreed-to time period.

Rationale: Consistency with PWS 1.2.6.2. The deleted text applies to the 3rd row threshold for “All documents” A14(b): The purpose of the service delivery summary is not to lay out a performance threshold for every deliverable, but rather to provide a performance threshold for the tasks for maintaining the document library.

Q14(c): Reference 3rd Row titled: “All documents as prescribed by this PWS” PWS Para: Change references to use PWS 1.1. PWS 1.2 (All) and PWS 4.7 Performance Threshold: Change the text “or” to “and” Rationale: Reference all PWS elements that refer to deliverables. Both Threshold criterions should apply A14(c): The PWS citations provided in the service delivery summary are specific to the required tasks within the PWS for the requirement. No change was made.

Q15: Reference: SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, CLINS X003, OCONUS Relocation QUESTION: What types of cost does the Government anticipate including in the OCONUS relocation costs reimbursable under these CLINS?

A15: Typically these costs may include but are not limited to DoD Schools, DBA Insurance, and COLA. CLINs X003 are Cost Reimbursable CLINs with a NTE amount set by the government for each location.

Q16: Reference: Addendum to 52.212-1 & 52.212-2, Section 3.3 Pricing Support Documentation The Government is requesting “estimated fully burdened labor rates.”

QUESTION: Should these rates include all OCONUS deployment costs (to include Cost of Livings adjustments, Hazard Pay, and DBA Insurance)? If not, where will those costs be accounted for?

A16: Please see answer to Q15.

Q17: If the responses in the Q&A contradict the requirements of the PWS, which do we follow? For example, it states in the RFP Addendum 52.212-1 para 5.3 that we are to include information on two recent contracts performed by teaming partner and significant subcontractors, but in the Questions_and_Answers_1_Jun_12 Word doc it states: “The intent is for there to be at least two PPISs from each teaming partner(s) and/or significant subcontractor(s) but no more than 10 PPISs total per team/offeror.” Since members of our team interpret the above differently, can you please confirm that we are not limited to 2 PPISs per prime/sub as long as we do not exceed 10 total?

A17: The RFP Amendment 1 issued on 8 Jun 2012 updated the PPQ information so it is now consistent between the Q&A and the RFP.

Q18: Will the Government provide logistical support to allow for children of DoD contractors overseas, especially where no one is permitted to leave the Air Force base, to attend Department of Defense Dependents Schools on a space-required, tuition-free basis or reimbursable basis?

A18: The contractors will be allowed to utilize Department of Defense Dependent Schools on a space-available and tuition paying basis, unless otherwise determined by the Combatant Commander for each OCONUS MAJCOM. This tuition is considered to be reimbursable under the OCONUS Relocation CLIN which is a cost reimbursable CLIN with a NTE amount set by the government for each location.

Q19:

Reference Solicitation, Pg 66, Section 3.3 Pricing Support Documentation which states “The pricing information submitted should fully support the PWS requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. A breakdown should also be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, position descriptions, and estimated fully burdened labor rates.” Please clarify whether pricing is to be provided by CLIN only or by both CLIN and each major functional element specified in the PWS.

A19: The major functional areas are included in the CLINs for the contract. As cited in Addendum 52.212-1 para 3.3 Pricing Support Documentation “A breakdown should also be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, position descriptions, and estimated fully burdened labor rates. Also, Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and then a total price for each MAJCOM as specified in solicitation Appendix 1 – EOD Locations and Equipment. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance”.

“Surge CLIN pricing shall only include the labor categories, position descriptions, and estimated fully burdened labor rates. The surge CLIN will be a FFP LOE CLIN and negotiated at time of requirement utilizing existing labor categories and rates”.

Also please reference answer A1 above.

Q20:

Reference Section B of the Solicitation, Surge CLINs. CLIN 0004 Surge is specified as FFP LOE. CLIN 1004 Surge Option is specified as FFP LOE. CLIN 2004 Surge Option is specified as COST. CLIN 3004 Surge Option is specified as Labor Hour. CLIN 4004 Surge Option is specified as Labor Hour. Is it the Government’s intent to have different contract types for the Surge CLINs?

A20: This was an error. All Surge CLINs are FFP LOE and have been updated in Amendment 2.

Q21:

Should Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) be proposed if applicable? (Reference the Department of State Standardized Regulations).

A21: Please refer to answer A15 in regards to COLA inclusion within the price proposal.

Questions as of 14 Jun 2012

Q22: Per Amendment 1 of the solicitation questions will be accepted until June 21, 2012. Given that some answers may impact the material requirements of the proposed effort, is it possible to extend the June 29th submission date so that all offerors have sufficient time to take into account any additional information provided?

A22: An extension to the proposal due date will not be executed at this time.

Q23: Reference Section 2.3-Electronic Copies, Page 64 of the Solicitation: This section states, “For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title.” It later states, “Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD.” Can you please clarify what is required? (The way it is written, sentence two of paragraph 2.3 can be interpreted as each volume having its own CD, but then a few sentences later, it states each Volume shall be in a different directory on a CD, making it sound like all volumes are on 1 CD).

A23: A single CD is sufficient.

Q24: Reference Section 2.4-Distribution, Page 65 of the Solicitation which indicates the original proposal shall be identified. Are there to be five hard copy submissions, four of which are copies as specified on page 63 of the solicitation and one which is to be considered the original hard copy submission? Or does the CD version count as the original version?

A24: The four copies referenced in Section 2.4 includes the original in the count. So you will submit four hard copies and one CD version.

Q25: In the cover letter to the PPQs, it states in paragraph 3 that the government requests response w/i 10 days of receipt of the letter. Also, in para 5.2 of the RFP, it states that the PPQs should be received NLT 10 days prior to the proposal deadline, which would be 19 June. If recipients follow guidance in the cover letter, they may submit after the 19th, depending on when they received/read the cover letter. Para 5.2 also states that the Contracting Officer will use discretion in reviewing any received after 19 Jun. My question is: will this policy be revised based on the contradictory guidance? Will the Contracting Officer apply more discretion due to this?

A25: Due to contradictory language, CO will consider PPQs that conform to the recency requirement as outlined in Addendum 52.212-1 and 52-212-2 to the RFP. PPQs must be received prior to the proposal due date of 12:00 PM CDT 29 June 2012.

Questions as of 20 June 12

Q26: Your Answer (A12) says: “This is a performance based requirement. RFP Appendix 1 – EOD Locations and Equipment was provided for offerors to have a means to determine the level of support needed based on the PWS requirements and equipment located at each EOD flight.”

DISCUSSION: AF EOD PWS 1.2.1 and PWS 1.2.2 tasks include duties that organic government personnel (military and AF civilians) may perform alongside the contractor support staff in the Flights. There are four EOD Flights with an authorized manpower level of 72 while most Flights have an authorized manpower level of 19 to 26. As such, one would expect a corresponding increase in the contractor workload for PWS 1.2.1 and PWS 1.2.2 in these larger Flights. On the other hand, with a greater number of organic government personnel in these Flights, government personnel may perform a greater share of some of the PWS 1.2.1 and PWS 1.2.2 tasks in these four Flights. If so, these larger Flights may not need a corresponding larger cadre of contractor personnel to perform shared tasks. How do the organic personnel in the larger Flights currently share or anticipate sharing PWS 1.2.1 and PWS 1.2.2 duties with the EOD Flight support contractor personnel? We need this information to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of work each Flight expects the contractor employee(s) to perform for the four large Flights.

A26: Flight personnel should not being doing the tasks that are included in the PWS period. Contractor employees will have primary responsibility on these tasks and organic government personnel will have secondary responsibility if the contractor employee is absent or after regular duty hours. The words “facilitate, support, assist” are key indicators that the contractor employee will not be alone in accomplishing these tasks. If a flight chief, contractor employee, or contractor feels that the amount of work has increased beyond a reasonable performance level, the government will take this into consideration to increase manpower.

Q27: REFERENCE: Attachment 2 to the PWS was been updated so that all locations needing EOD support are listed under their respective MAJCOMs including the HQ EOD locations. In the list, AETC and AFMC do not have their HQs listed. Are we correct in thinking that AETC (Randolph AFB TX) and AFMC (Wright-Patterson AFB OH) do NOT need EOD MAJCOM support under PWS 1.2.5?

A27: Correct, AETC (Randolph AFB TX) and AFMC (Wright-Patterson AFB OH) do NOT need EOD MAJCOM support. Not authorized/justified at this time.

Q28: REFERENCE: Appendix_1_-_EOD_Locations_and_Equipment_1_Jun_12 includes no numbers on rows corresponding to HQs MAJCOM elements. The fact that these are in list and there is an EOD MAJCOM support task in the PWS (PWS 1.2.5) suggests the government wants the offerors to propose personnel for some or all of these HQs MAJCOM and other non-EOD Flight elements. Similar to ITEM 2 above, the MAJCOMs have varying numbers of EOD bases within their commands that could increase the EOD MAJCOM support needs. How many contractor personnel does the government expect to be assigned to the different HQs MAJCOM elements in Appendix 1?

A28: MAJCOM contractor employees will not be performing flight level work tasks but will be performing MAJCOM level tasks as described in PWS 1.2.5. The PWS requires a contractor employee support capability at every HQs MAJCOM elements. The amount of workload at each HQs MAJCOM element directly corresponds to manpower and equipment UTC’s of that MAJCOM’s EOD flights. (i.e., ACC with 325 people and XX# of UTC’s requires more support than AFSOC that has 52 people and much less XX# of UTC’s)

Q29: REFERENCE: Final Solicitation FA4452-12-R-0003 file titled, “A4452-12-R-0003_Conformed_Copy_13_June_12” RFP Section 2.2.1 Page Limitations (page 62 of 76) “Each page shall be counted except the following: cover pages, table of contents, list of table(s) and drawings and resumes.” RFP Section 4.2.2.3 Staffing Plan (page 67 of 76) “(3) Identify the necessary key positions and provide resumes or position descriptions, which demonstrate requisite education, experience, security, or special skills needed to perform the intended PWS tasks.” Do position descriptions count against the Volume II 50 page limit?

A29: No, you are asked to provide resumes or position descriptions. Since resumes are not included in the page count, position descriptions are not included in the page count.

Questions as of 21 June 12

Q30: REFERENCE: 2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

Question – For Volume III, Table 2.1 allocates a page limit of 5 pages per PPIS. Is our understanding correct that a short less than one page introduction, the consent letters, and organizational structure change history do not count against Volume III page count?

A30: Per Addendum 52.212-1 Table 2.1 states “Limit past performance volume to five pages per past/present contract submitted. Complete a Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (Attachment 1) for each contract.” In light of the above question, the required consent letter(s) ( IAW 52.212-1 para 5.1 Past Performance), will be excluded from the 5 page limit. Also, the page limit for the past performance volume per past/present contract submitted has be increased to seven.