20130926_Q A.docx

Question: Section L, paragraph L6.4 - Please confirm the statement "For cost purposes, this task is a reduction to CLIN X004" is still accurate in light of the other Amendment 19 changes.

Answer: Amendment 19 made no changes to this statement, so it remains correct.

Question: Section L, paragraph L6.7 - Please confirm the statement "For cost purposes, this task is a reduction to CLIN X003" is still accurate in light of the other Amendment 19 changes.

Answer: Amendment 19 made no changes to this statement, so it remains correct.

Question: In reference to Section L, paragraph L6.2.2, does this mean that the offeror is required to propose the number of code hours for every SCR for every year? This appears redundant given that the SCRs are repeated.

Answer: The Government intends to obtain the proposed code hours for the SCR list in the base period only. The total hours are required to be input into the Attachment 14, Price Model, within the tab titled, “CLIN 0001 Base Year Breakdown.” The Excel tab name did not change, but the information is now required for all years.

Question: In reference to Section L, paragraph L6.2.3, does the Government intend for the offeror to use the hours directly from the SCRs in the base period to compute each option year’s proposed cost?

Answer: The Government intent is to provide a means for each offeror to demonstrate their ability to become more efficient each year completing SCRs that are of equivalent type and complexity to the listed SCR. The SCRs would be similar to, but not the same as, the listed SCR; therefore, offerors should not propose zero cost on the assumption that the work was completed on a previous SCR.

Question: In the email sent to offerors on 26 September 2013, what does the Government mean by, “The existing list of SCRs was used because future tasks would be familiar enough for an offeror to use as a baseline to demonstrate proposed efficiencies in the cost volume; each SCR should be treated as familiar, but not the same SCR?”

Answer: This statement relates back to Section L, paragraph L6.2.3. The Government anticipates offerors to propose based on accomplishing SCRs that are of equivalent type and complexity to those listed.

Question: What was the reason for removing the statements, “For all non-local off-site contractor program management offices, the Government will include a most probable cost for Government personnel (PM, COR, CO, technical representatives) to travel to meetings, testing, etc. The most probable cost will include an estimate of two trips per year, four Government members, for four days each trip per period of performance” in M3.4.3?

Answer: Given the total value of the ID/IQ, the cost of these trips is relatively insignificant and will not impact an award decision. Additionally, the cost of Government travel, and associated funding, is not something that offerors would include in their proposals and should not be included in the most probable cost. The contracting officer has determined to remove the statements from the RFP.

Question: As a result of Amendments 0019 and 0020, should the offeror obtain updated proposals from subcontractors and provide updated information for DCAA/DCMA?

Answer: In order to support proposal evaluation with the most current information, updated proposals and rates shall be provided.