Questions_and_Answers_ACFP_vs_1.docx

Questions – 10 Sep 13 Q-1 Can the government clarify the limits on cross referencing? e.g. does this include statements such as "Plan x is included in this volume at Appendix A."

A-1 As stated in RFP, para. 1.2.3; cross referencing between volumes is not permitted. For example, the FFRDC evaluation team member is not permitted to view past performance information. Therefore this information should not be cross referenced in Volumes I, II and IV. Each proposal volume should stand on its own without any cross references to other volumes. Appendices may be included in a volume, however, will be included in the page count for that volume.

Q-2 RFP Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2.5 call for key personnel resumes, whereas the PWS only requests key personnel names. Can the government clarify which takes precedence?

Can the PWS reference the resume attachment?

A-2 PWS para. 1.3.1.4.1 refers to the requirement to provide names of key personnel in the “final” Management Plan. RFP Addendum 52.212-1 para. 3.2.5 and RFP Addendum 52.212-2 Subfactor 2 (i) requires a “draft” management plan and resumes of key personnel without names.

See RFP Amendment 0001 of PWS para. 1.3.1.4.1, Addendum 52.212-1 para. 3.2.5, and RFP Addendum 52.212-2 Subfactor 2 (i) for clarification.

Q-3 RFP Sections 1.2.1 and 3.2.5 call for key personnel resumes. One of the key personnel called for is a Contract/Business Manager is listed as key personnel (per PWS). The description of this position denotes someone normally on the internal corporate staff. Will resume be required if person is not direct billable to the contract? If so can the government explain the relevance of such a request to the work requested?

A-3 Contract/Business Manager listed as key personnel has been removed. See Attch 1 PWS section 1.3.1.4.1 for clarification.

Q-4 RFP section 5.1.3 states "The DD Form 254 shall be submitted in Volume V, Contract Documentation and Price." However, RFP Section 1.2, Table 1.2 denotes only volumes I thru IV for submission. Should the correct reference be Volume IV? If so can the government correct the reference? If not can the government provide a description and rule set for volume V?

A-4 RFP section 5.1.3 has been corrected to read as follows: “The DD form 254 shall be submitted in Volume IV, Contract Documentation and Price.

Q-5 RFP Section 5.2.7 states "The government will provide property for the contractor to use in performance of the contract. A list of government furnished property is included in Appendices 1 and 2 of the PWS and RFP Attachment 4 – Government Furnished Equipment. Refer to Section 3 of the PWS for a complete description of government furnished property, equipment, and installation." When responding to the government can the List of Government Furnished Property be included by reference in the Contract Documentation and Price Volume, or does the government expect it to be included by insertion of the content of the current referenced appendices in the response?

A-5 When responding to the government the List of Government Furnished Property may be included by reference.

Q-6 Instructions on small business goal is unclear since FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting is incorporated by full text in the Solicitation, which specifies a small business goal of at least 50% (for service contracts), but the subcontracting plan instructions include a small business goal of at least 30%. Can the Government either indicate which reference has precedence or reconcile the difference so the correct answer can be provided?

A-6 The small business goal for the subcontracting plan is at least 30%. FAR 52.219-14 does not apply and has been removed from the RFP.

Q-7 Section 3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach states: Required documents for each offeror’s staffing approach include a staffing plan addressing all phases of staffing from the phase-in (if applicable) to full contract performance. Recommend "if applicable" be included in Evaluation Addendum pg 60 b. Technical, Subfactor 2(iv) Staffing Approach for continuity of instruction.

A-7 “If applicable” has been added to Evaluation Addendum pg 60 b. Technical, Subfactor 2(iv) Staffing Approach and to Addendum 52.212-1 section 3.2.5 subfactor Two –Staffing Approach.

Q-8 The last part of RFP Attch 1 PWS Para 1.3.1.1 states "The contractor shall participate in a quarterly TMR in the local Scott Air Force Base (AFB) area as directed by the COR. The contractor shall address program and contract progress on tasks accomplished during the quarter, in addition to reviewing the monthly status report. Agenda items shall include high level action items, funding status, and any new action items/issues identified by the government or the contractor. Key contractor personnel shall attend and participate. Agenda and presentation material for each Interchange meeting (IM) is due no later than (NLT) 24 working hours prior to the meeting, drafts of minutes are due within 5 workdays following meeting, and final minutes are due within 10 workdays following meeting (CDRL A004)." The government starts the para. referring to the Task Management Review (TMR), however when agenda and presentation materials are discussed the government references an Interchange Meeting (IM). Should the reference continue to be to the TMR instead of an IM? If so can the government correct to indicate this? If not can the government rewrite to clarify the change between the two events?

A-8 See revised RFP Attch 1 PWS Para 1.3.1.1.

Q-9 Monthly Report Calendar day requirement is still included in Table on page 9 under Services Summary {RFP Attch 1 PWS Para 2.0 (Pg 9)}. Recommend changing to "workdays" to correspond to Section 1.3.1.1 Subtask 1-1 – Monthly Contractor Progress, Status/Management Report, Project Schedule, Trip Report, Task Management Review (TMR) Agendas, Minutes, and Action Items.

A-9 RFP Attch PWS Para 2.0 (Pg 9) Performance Threshold under Monthly Contractor Progress Status/Management Report has been changed to “workday” instead of “calendar day”.

Q-10 Section 3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach states: Required documents for each offeror’s staffing approach include a staffing plan addressing all phases of staffing from the phase-in (if applicable) to full contract performance. Recommend "if applicable" be included in RFP Attch 1 PWS Para 4.28.1 Phase In for continuity of instruction.

A-10 RFP Attch 1 PWS Para 4.28.1 has been revised to include “if applicable” in regards to submission of a Phase-In Plan.

Q-11 URL in RFP Attch 5 A0001 states hops://eim.amc. af.mil/org/a6/a6i/ deliverables/ default.aspx. What is the correct URL?

A-11 URL in RFP Attch 5 CDRL A001 has been changed to https://eim.amc.af.mil/org/a6/a6i/deliverables/default.aspx.

Q-12 RFP Attch 5 A001 does not state "or email" option as in PWS. Recommend the government amend to match PWS reference.

A-12 RFP Attch 5 CDRL A001 has been revised to state “The report shall be delivered via email”.

Q-13 RFP Attch 5 A004 Provides performance criteria for Non TMR and IM meetings not spelled out anywhere else in PWS or RFP. Can this be added to other areas?

A-13 RFP Attachment 5 CDRL A004 covers TMR only.

Q-14 Section 3.2.5 Subfactor Two – Staffing Approach states: Required documents for each offeror’s staffing approach include a staffing plan addressing all phases of staffing from the phase-in (if applicable) to full contract performance. Recommend "if applicable" be included in RFP Attch 5 A0011 for continuity of instruction.

A-14 Attch 5 CDRL A011 has been revised to include the verbiage “if applicable” in reference to the phase-in plan.

Q-15 Section states "CDRL A003 Trip Report is reflected as a requirement of PWS paragraph 1.3.1.1." This deliverable (CDRL A003) is not called out in paragraph 1.3.1.1. Recommend the Government include a reference to CDRL A003 in paragraph 1.3.1.1 A-15 CDRL A003 Trip Report reference has been changed to paragraph 4.21.1 on RFP Attch 5 A003 and on PWS section 1.4 Deliverables under PWS Paragraph heading for A003.

Q-16 The referenced section states "Pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing." Was it the governments intent that the 1.5 line spacing be applied only to Volume II Technical or to all volumes? If for the intent was for all volumes will the government amend the RFP to allow volume III Past Performance to be single spaced or amend the RFP to provide for additional page count for each Past Performance.

A-16 It was the intent of the government that all volumes follow a 1.5 line spacing. Table 1.2 – Proposal Organization, Past Performance section has been revised to allow the submission of up to eight pages per contract.

Q-17 Instructions to Offerors, section 5.0 refers to the Contract Documentation and Price as Volume V whereas Section 1.2 (Table 1.2) of the Instructions to Offerors refers to the Contract Documentation and Price as Volume IV. Additionally, RFP Section 1.2, Table 1.2 denotes only volumes I thru IV for submission. Should the correct reference be Volume IV? If so can the government correct the reference? If not can the government provide a description and rule set for volume V?

A-17 Instructions to Offerors, section 5.0 regarding the Contract Documentation and Price Volume V has been revised to read Contract Documentation and Price Volume IV.

Q-18 Request that the Government state specifically that the Past Performance volume can be submitted with the Technical Proposal on 26 September 2013. If the Government wants the Past Performance Volume submitted early, provide a specific date/time when the Past Performance volume should be submitted so that all Contractors follow the same procedures.

A-18 Past Performance information is due on 26 September 2013 at 2:00 pm Central Time. The government requested earlier submission of Past Performance information to allow for preparation time prior to source selection evaluations. The request for early submission referenced on page 41 Paragraph 4.2 Early Proposal Information remains unchanged.

Q-19 The Government requirement for “no more than ten recent contracts” represents a significant challenge and burden for small companies and provides large companies an unfair advantage with respect to this procurement. This assessment is based on the fact that small companies that have specific capacity and past performance relative to the Solicitation do not necessarily have the “quantity” of other past performance citations to draw on compared to large companies. Recommend the Government apply the language adopted in the Draft RFP.

A-19 An offeror is not required to submit 10 references. The government is allowing up to ten (total) past performance submittals from each offeror. The recency, relevancy, and performance quality of submitted past performance contracts is evaluated. See Amendment 0001 RFP Addendum 52.212-2 Section c. Past Performance Factor (2) (ii) for clarification.

Question 20 – 18 Sep 13 Q-20 Ref PWS Section 4.25 DFARS 252.227-7014(b) as the justification for providing the government with unlimited rights and sole use of the software, but 252.227-7014(a)(16) defines unlimited rights without including a sole use provision. If we use software developed by others in a delivered version of ACFP (including software covered by the GPL and prior versions of ACFP itself), we will not have legal standing to provide a sole use license. Request the government strike the requirement for "Sole Use" or rewrite to address how would the government like us to deal with such a case?

A-20 Attach 1 – PWS Section 4.25 has been revised to not include a sole use provision.

Question 21 – 19 Sep 13 Q-21 Request a two-week extension for offers in support of the Specialized Contracting Branch of the Air Force Headquarters Air Mobility Command (AMC) Solicitation No. FA4452-12-R-0036, entitled, “Advanced Computer Flight Planning (ACFP)”.

A-21 Offer due date has been extended to 2:00 pm Central Time Monday, 30 Sep 13.