Questions and Answers.doc

CONTRACTOR

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

SABER SOLICITATION FA4626-08-R-0001

Q1. There is a difference between the RFP and the Technical Specification in the instructions for how costs are constructed. For example, RFP Page 9, **, bolded underline section states ((...no allowance for any additional costs beyond the bare costs from Means and the coefficient..." and the Technical Specification, Page 12, 01000, Paragraph 2.4 states ((...The 'Bare Costs' for the work tasks multiplied by the 'city cost index' for Great Falls, Montana, are multiplied by the coefficient. We recommend the Government consider revising the RFP for consistency between the two references.

A1. RFP has been revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q2. There is a small inconsistency between the dollar level of competed task orders. For example, RFP Page 16, Paragraph II.1(c) states ((...to be considered for each order in excess of $2000." Please note that RFP Page 32, Clause 5352.216-9000.(a) states " ...in excess of $2,500 ...". We recommend the Government consider a revising the RFP for consistency between the two references.

A2. RFP has been revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q3. RFP Page 32, Clause 5352.216-9000.(a) states " ...all multiple award contractors shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order in excess of $2,500..."Technical Specification, Page 16, Section 01010, Para 1.1, 3rd Subparagraph states ((...The Government reserves the right to either competitively bid each TO or give the RFP directly to the contractor with the lowest coefficient and negotiate a cost for the TO with that contractor." The two statements appear to be contradictory. Would the Government clarify the ordering procedures intended for competing task orders for this multiple award contract?

A3. RFP has been revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q4. There is an apparent difference between the Section L requirement and the Section M evaluation criteria for Key Personnel. For example, RFP Page 43, Paragraph L-505.C.2.a.(2). States "provide a brief job description with the required qualifications of each Key Personnel member" and Paragraph M1. II.l.b) States "provides resumes for key personnel." Would the Government clarify its intent in regards to Offerors including resumes for specifically named key personnel within the proposal?

A4. RFP has been revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q5. Drawings are required to be on 24" x 36" Title Block Sheets (See Technical Specifications, Page 20, Section 01010, Paragraph 10.0). For evaluator ease, would the Government prefer to have the drawings for the sample project delivered rolled up in a cardboard tube as opposed to folded many times over to fit into a three ring binder (See RFP Page 46, Paragraph L-505.D.4.(d))

A5. Yes, we'd prefer the tube with rolled-up drawings. RFP revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q6. RFP Page44, Paragraph L-505.C.3 requires Offerors to present ((...no more than 10 of the most relevant contracts..." Further on in a subparagraph (Paragraph L-SOS.C.3.(b)) the Offeror is asked to "provide a list of contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three years." Is it the Government's intent for the Offeror to submit a listing of all contracts they have performed in the last three years, or just the 10?

A6. Wording revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q7. The requirements for customer questionnaires/surveys seem to have been duplicated during RFP generation. For example, in RFP Page 45, ParagraphL-505.C.3(c) fI ...Offeror shall mail Attachment 6, Past Performance Questionnaire, to the list of 10 most relevant contract references" while in Subparagraph (e) fI ...Contractors shall rovide...Present and Past Performance Customer Survey Form, located in Attachment 7, to its customers...n Are we correct in our understanding that the requirement is to use the Past Performance Questionnaires provided in RFP Section J, Attachment 7, and that references to the Present and Past Performance Customer Survey Forms and Attachment 6 are an inadvertent error in the RFP?

A7. RFP revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q8. There is a difference between the Task Order response time information presented in the tables contained in the Technical Specification, Page 16, Paragraph 1.1, and the Statement of Work, Page 2, Paragraph 1. We recommend the Government consider revising the RFP for consistency between the two references.

A8. Corrected SOW will be posted with Amendment 0001.

Q9. Can the contractor choose between PULSAR and/or Winest for the CEP for this contract?

A9. The contractor shall use Winest and provide 3 copies to the Government. RFP revised, reference Amendment 0001.

Q10. Does the Profession Engineer (PE) have to be on staff or can they be a consultant?

A10. Cannot just keep a consultant. PE must be on-staff with the contractor Q11. Where can we obtain the specification for windows as stated in the specification.

A11. Corrected, reference Amendment 0001.