Questions_and_Answers_Final.pdf

FA4890-13-R-0003, Financial System Administrator Systems Support

RFP Questions and Answers, Final

QUESTION: PWS para 1.2 states, "One FTE is required at each Host base Comptroller Squadron" however, Proposal Instructions, para 6-7.2.1 and Evaluation Criteria, para7-

3.1.1 refer to the "identification of all positions." Are all functional tasks within Section

1.2 accomplished by the one FTE for each Comptroller Squadron or are there multiple positions to accomplish these tasks at each Comptroller Squadron?

ANSWER: All functional tasks are accomplished by the one FTE.

QUESTION: PWS para 1.3.2 states "Contractor personnel assigned to the task should be familiar with the FM applications listed in Attachment 1" but further in the paragraph it states "Knowledge of AF and DoD financial systems and their application environment is desired". Are these firm requirements or desired? Please clarify these conflicting statements.

ANSWER: They are not firm requirements…they are desired.

QUESTION: PWS para 1.6 Deliverables Table. Could the Government identify what is expected to be included for each of the listed items and if there is a desired format?

ANSWER: The contractor is to develop each item within the deliverable table. The Contracting Officer Representative will advise if critical reporting information is missing.

Format can be Word document or Excel spreadsheet.

QUESTION: There is no PWS paragraph 1.2.2. Is this an administrative error, or does the Government have a specific requirement that was inadvertently omitted?

ANSWER: Paragraph 1.2.2 was deleted from the PWS and does not contain any pertinent information.

QUESTION: 1.2.3.4 states that the contractor shall monitor trouble tickets submitted to the respective helpdesk. How are the trouble tickets being monitored?

ANSWER: It’s up to the contractor to determine the method. It could be as simple as an Excel spreadsheet. If the contractor must open a trouble ticket with the local Communications Squadron help desk, they will be provided with the remedy ticket number. The contractor is expected to keep track of the tickets they open and monitor until the desire outcome/issue is resolved. Access to the remedy system is not needed in order to do this.

QUESTION: In the Proposal Instructions, para 6-7.2.1 the last bullet states the contractor will "Identify all positions and indicate how the personnel ... will meet the experience and expertise identified in PWS1.3." Is the Government requesting resumes for each position or representative resumes and if so, are the resumes included in the proposal page count?

ANSWER: The Government does not require resumes as part of the Financial System Administrator Support Services proposal.

QUESTION: PWS para 1.6 refers to the delivery of end items specified in Appendix A, but the solicitation does not have an Appendix A. Is the Government referring to the table at the end of Section1.6?

ANSWER: Language will be changed to read, "The contractor shall be responsible for delivering all end items specified within chart under paragraph 1.6.3.”

QUESTION: PWS para 1.6.1 refers to a FSA Collaboration and Knowledge-base. Is this an existing tool provided by the Government at each location for the FSAs to use, is this a tool the FSAs are required to maintain or is this a deliverable that the contractor must develop and deliver to each location? Please clarify.

ANSWER: The current tool is managed by the incumbent using a SharePoint page. It cannot be transferred. The vast majority of the information residing on the SharePoint site are the "continuity" documents. But, it also allows the FSAs to collaborate on various issues and to assist each other with troubleshooting. A company who provides IT service should be able to provide a web page/SharePoint page their employees can access to allow on-line collaboration and document sharing.

QUESTION: PWS para 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 identify potential deliverables, but they are not listed in the table that follows these areas. Shouldn't the table include all deliverables?

ANSWER: Items in 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 and any others not included in the table are still required IAW the PWS. Items listed in table are most critical.

QUESTION: Proposal Instructions Para 6-8.2 and 6-8.3 are in conflict. One states a past performance within 1 year and the other states a 3 year timeframe. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Paragraph 6-8.2 will be revised to read, "during the last three (3) years preceding the final solicitation due date."

QUESTION: PWS para 1.2.6.1 states the weekly workload of 50-100 PCs or peripheral equipment is added, moved, upgraded or patched weekly. Is this the workload for one

FTE at each Comptroller Squadron in addition to all of the other functional tasks listed?

ANSWER: Estimate based on each location. Movement/upgrades are normally on exception basis as new hardware is purchased to upgrade aged/non-serviceable hardware. Patches to comply with IA policies occurs on a daily/weekly basis.

QUESTION: Is the dollar value quoted on the incumbent contract for Q&A on 31 Jan the contract ceiling or obligated amount?

ANSWER: It is the contract award amount.

QUESTION: Has there been an increase or decrease in work (meaning head count / FTEs) from the incumbent effort to this effort?

ANSWER: No change.

QUESTION: Amendment 2 Q&A Page 1 references the need to work beyond normal working hours in the month of September - which implies the need for employees to work overtime. Page 4 of the same Q&A states that there will be a 40 hour work week -which implies no overtime is needed at all. Does the Govt require more than 40 hours a week at any time during a given year, and if yes - how many additional hours will the govt require?

ANSWER: No requirement beyond a 40 hour work week exist currently. The possibility for “adjusted” hours does exist during the month of September but the quantity cannot be determined at this time. Employees are not expected to work more than a 40 hour week. However, they may need to adjust their work hours to provide coverage during critical fiscal year-end activities.

QUESTION: Amendment 1 removed Tyndal AFB, FL from the PWS. Amendment 2 had it listed again. Please confirm if Tyndall AFB FL is removed or not.

ANSWER: Tyndall AFB has been removed from this requirement.

QUESTION: The PWS is approximately 10 pages long. The technical vol has a 10 page limit which makes it essentially impossible to, "demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required" per the evaluation criteria 7-

3.1. Recent Air Force IT-related work of a similar scope and size with 3 subfactors (FA8052-13-R-0001_0002 and FA8052-12-R-0019) have established a 25 page technical volume page limit. A recent Army IT RFP (W52P1J-12-R-0219) allowed for 30 pages for the technical vol. Will the Air Force increase the Technical Vol page limits to 25 in line with the other Air Force precedents?

ANSWER: Para 6-7.2.1 Technical Factor 1: Management/Staffing Plan is approximately one page in length. The Government feels 10 pages is sufficient in order to address the items listed here.

QUESTION: WRT PWS 2.3.16.3 - regarding lost keys - this implies that the contractor could be required to cover the cost of replacing affected locks in an entire building or buildings depending on what type of keys are provided. This could be many thousands of dollars and introduces completely unknown risk into this FFP effort. Please either remove the clause or put a cap such as, "Up to $200 per incident and not to exceed

$1,000 over the life of the contract" so we can price it appropriately.

ANSWER: Para 2.3.16.3 remains the same.

QUESTION: WRT 6-7.2.1 Technical Factor 1, last bullet on page 15 of Amendment 2 -states "Description of orientation provided to the employee (at no cost to the Government) prior to assignment to a task." We believe this means prior to employee starting work on the contract. Please clarify. If there are on-going tasks that the employees must receive orientation on, please state what those are.

ANSWER: This section refers to orientation for the tasks as stated in the PWS.

QUESTION: Price Vol - Is it acceptable to submit an Excel document that includes pricing information requested WRT 6-9.1 Instructions for Vol III in addition to the other material requested?

ANSWER: The format is at the contractor’s discretion.

QUESTION: Under Price Evaluation, Part B - Proposal Documentation Evaluation - 7-

3.3.2.1 "Personnel Clearances" we believe the intent in this section is for the contractor to provide proof from DSS that the security clearance is in place. Currently the wording is unclear. Can you re-word 7-3.3.2.1 to read "Provide proof from Defense Security Service that your company's security clearance is in place."?

ANSWER: Para 7-3.3.2.1 is referring to facility clearances not personnel clearances.

The Government will verify information submitted in the price volume by the contractor.

QUESTION:

A) What ITE will be issued to the contractor staff (per PWS 2.3.15.1) and what is the value of this ITE (per 2.3.15.2)?

B) Since it is not really easy to determine if a computer was "lost" vs "stolen" - The requirement for a contractor to replace computers that are "lost" is not standard. We ask that the Government assume some risk as well - since the Contractor is already assuming risk of performance under a FFP effort. We request that clause 2.3.15.2 be removed.

ANSWER:

A) The “value” of the ITE will vary at each location. In the event of an accountable item becoming lost, stolen or destroyed, the Report of Survey (ROS) process is initiated to determine cause and liability.

B) The contractor will be responsible for maintaining accountability of all items issued to their company.

IAW PREVIOUS QUESTION AND ANSWER NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE

POSTED, NO FUTURE QUESTIONS TO THIS RFP WILL BE ACCEPTED.

PROPOSALS ARE DUE 22 MAR 2013, 12:00 P.M. EST.