BOS_Past_Performance_Questions.pdf

21 Feb 2017 QUESTION TRACKING SHEET FA4819-16-R-6001

Tracker

Date Rec'd

Question Type

Company Name

Pg # Para # Question

C001 25-Jan-17 C Alutiiq N/A N/A Neither the RFP nor this form addresses the due date for questions. Is there a suspense date for the submission of questions?

Answer: Yes, the due date for questions is 10 Feb 17 by 2:00 pm CST. This was corrected and posted to FBO on 25 Jan 17 which was prior to the site visit held on 2 Feb 17.

C002 7-Feb-17 C DBSI_Chugach RFP

RFP

2.d.(6)

The evaluation points listed in 2.d.(6) include elements beyond the requirements to respond to fields of the PPI tool. Will the Government allocate five additional pages for 2.d.(6) in order for us to fully demonstrate our corporate experience and past performance of key personnel and predecessor companies?

Answer: Past performance submitted via the PPI Tool is an electronic submission. Therefore, it does not count against the 30 page limit for past performance information. The RFP has amended to clarify this.

C003 7-Feb-17 C DBSI_Chugach RFP

RFP

3.b.(4)

Table 1 specifies a due date of Volume IV Past Performance on 23 Feb 17.

Since the Past Performance Volume is due prior to the due date of the rest of the proposal, will the Government consider publishing the answers to these questions by February 13, 2017 or consider extending the due date of the Past Performance Volume?

Answer: The due date for Past Performance Volume IV has been changed to 1 Mar 17.

C004 7-Feb-17 C DBSI_Chugach RFP

RFP

2.d.(2)

Will the Government consider excluding the 2.d.(2) PPI Tool hard copy report from the 30 page limit to give us the opportunity to adequately address sections 2.d.(3), 2.d.(5), and 2.d.(6)?

Answer: See answer C002 above.

21 Feb 2017 QUESTION TRACKING SHEET FA4819-16-R-6001

Tracker

Date Rec'd

Question Type

Company Name

Pg # Para # Question

C005 7-Feb-17 C DBSI_Chugach RFP

RFP

2.d.(3)

Will the Government consider excluding 2.d.(3) Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts from the 30 page limit to give us the opportunity to adequately address sections 2.d.(5), and 2.d.(6)?

Answer: No. IAW FAR 15.304(c)(2), "The quality of service shall be addressed in every source selection through the consideration of one or more non-cost factors such as past performance.." As stated in the RFP (pg 157, under Basis for Contract Award), this solicitation is a subjective tradeoff where past performance is significantly more important than price. Also see the answer to question C002 above.

C012 10-Feb-17 C Tsay Atch 4 Price Matrix

Atch_4_Price_Matrix, Worksheet Tab Where does the government want offerors to show costs for the 6-Month Option to extend?

Answer: The offeror is not required to complete the 6-mos Extension of the worksheet. See RFP pg 160, para 3b(2). The CO may exercise this clause one time only during the life of the contract at any option period. The price of a 6-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be added to the contract for the proposed price for the final option period to establish a not to exceed ceiling price. Also see RFP pg 157, para 1c.

C013 10-Feb-17 C Tsay Atch 4 Price Matrix

Atch_4_Price_Matrix, Worksheet Tab – Option 5, Column G. Is it the Government’s intent to not show subtotals by CLIN?

Answer: The Price Matrix, (Atch 4) has been revised to show Column G CLIN subtotals on the Worksheet Tab.

C014 10-Feb-17 C Tsay Atch 4 Price Matrix

Atch_4_Price_Matrix, All Sched B Tabs – Unit Price, Column E.

Will the Government consider extending the column width for the unit price column? The amounts in this column reflect ###### as the column is too narrow to show the actual amounts making it difficult for offerors to double check their figures.

Answer: The width of Column E on all Sched B Tabs have been expanded.

Past Perf Ques