FOL-BOS_Q As_25_Nov.pdf

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-13-R-0117

FORWARD OPERATING LOCATION – BASE OPERATING SUPPORT (FOL-BOS)

25 November 2013

No Question Reference

(i.e. PWS or RFP

Paragraph)

COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE

1 Draft PWS 2.8 (pg. 50) PWS Section, 2.8 USAF/DoD Systems states: “Use the following

USAF-specific applications and systems to manage AF resources:

[SBSS, AFEMS, etc].” Is the Government’s intent that the contractor use the output products/data, from these systems; or is the intent for the contractor to enter data into these systems? Can the Government please define the term “use.” Please specify which systems the Government intends the contractor to use.

The intent is for the contractor to operate these automated tools in order to manage the areas that each tool was meant to apply. As such, the contractor would be entering data and/or using outputs as necessary to effectively accomplish the contract. This includes, as a user of the automated tool, keeping the application current IAW the overall owner/administrative manager for the tool.

Actions such as software updates/patches would be routinely accomplished by the contractor. The term “use” in this context is “to employ for some purpose”. The systems are as outlined in this paragraph.

2 FOL-BOS Industry Day

Slides (p. 43)

On Slide 43, the Government lists the CLINs for this contract. It does not call out a separate CLIN for DBA insurance. Will the government consider a separate CLIN Cost-type CLIN for DBA?

DBA Insurance will be included in the Offerors FFP.

3 Draft PWS 2.22.1 –

2.22.3 (pg. 13)

PWS numbering goes from 2.22.1. Key Replacement to 2.22.3 Lock

Combinations and skips 2.22.2 altogether. We suggest that the

Government renumbers Lock Combination 2.22.2 and eliminates 2.22.

Made change from 2.22.3 to 2.22.2 (Complete)

4 Draft PWS, 4.1.5.5 (p.24) The Draft PWS includes two references to paragraph 4.1.5.5. One is labeled 4.1.5.5 Stock Levels and the other is 4.1.5.5 Repair Cycles.

Recommend renumbering to the following:

4.1.5.5 Stock Level

4.1.5.6 Repair Cycles

4.1.5.7 Safeguarding Government Property

Made change:

4.1.5.5. Stock Levels

4.1.5.6. Repair Cycle

4.1.5.7. Safeguarding Government Property

(Complete)

5 Draft PWS 4.23.4.3 (p.

38)

This looks as though it should be numbered 4.2.3.4.3, is this the case?

Will the Government please renumber?

Made change from 4.23.4.3 to 4.2.3.4.3 (Complete)

6 Draft PWS, 4.4.18.2 (p.

47 and 49)

In the Draft PWS there are two references using the number 4.4.18.2.

Specifically, they appear as the following:

4.4.18.2 Information Security Officers (IAOs) (p. 47) on 4.4.18.2

Services and National Directives (p.49)

We recommend that the Government renumber the second reference as

4.4.18.7.2.

Made change from 4.4.18.2 to 4.4.18.7.2. Services and national Directives (Complete)

7 Draft PWS 4.4.18.3 (p. 47 and 49)

In the Draft PWS there are two references using the number 4.4.18.3.

Specifically they appear as the following:

4.4.18.3 Trusted Agents (p.47)

4.4.18.3 CRO Forms (p. 49)

We recommend that the Government renumber the second reference as

4.4.18.7.3.

Made change from 4.4.18.3 to 4.4.18.7.3. CRO Forms

(Complete)

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-13-R-0117

FORWARD OPERATING LOCATION – BASE OPERATING SUPPORT (FOL-BOS)

25 November 2013

No Question Reference

(i.e. PWS or RFP

Paragraph)

COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE

8 Draft PWS 5.4.1 (p. 51)

Draft PWS 5.4.1 Reports, asks contractors to maintain a list of all subcontractors/BPAs on the SharePoint site. Will the Government require offerors to use SharePoint or may we use another Management

Information System (MIS)?

Contractor shall use the MIS consistent with their solution for PWS 2.10, Data Management System. A SharePoint site is not specifically required.

9 Draft RFP, Section M, Evaluation Criteria (p. 17)

Although the section is titled SECTION M: EVALUATION

CRITERIA, the numbering begins with begins with L-1 and continues through L-2; and the number sequence is out of order. Should these be

“M” paragraphs? Are the paragraph L-3.1, L-3.2, and L-3.3 to be renumbered M-1.1, M-1.2, and M-1.3?

DRAFT L&M has been updated to correct the numbering

10 Draft Solicitation, Section

L "Instruction to

Offers", Paragraph L-

8.1.2, PPI (Page 6) and

Paragraph L-8.3 (Page 7)

If it is determined that this acquisition is going to be set-aside for small business concerns, in order to greatly expand the pool of qualified small businesses and encourage small business participation, I respectfully request that AMIC consider revising Section L, Paragraph L-8.3, Recent

Determination, to read "recent determination within 5 years" since having two of these projects with the same size, scope and complexity within a 3 year period would most likely move any small business to a large business status. Alternatively, the same effect could be accomplished by revising Section L, Paragraph L-8.1.2, PPI to state

"Submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) references with one (1) being from the prime and the remaining being from the subcontractors". Since in the recent FBO releases dated Sept 13 and

Sept 16, AMIC did not provide a revised Section L or indicate the final acquisition strategy with regard to a small business set-aside, I assume this is still being determined, considered and finalized and therefore respectfully request consideration of these two revisions.

FA4890-13-R-0117 will be a Total Small Business Set-

Aside (see 24 September 2013 posting).

The Recency Determination will not be changed.

11 RFI for Small Business

Set-Aside and Acquisition

Strategy

If the acquisition strategy is going to be small business set aside, respectfully request that AMIC include DFARS 232.903

Responsibilities and DFARS 232.906 Making Payments that are outlined in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) letter dated

Sept 14, 2011 which states that it is their policy to accelerate payments to Small Business to net 15 days.

The DoD is required to assist small business concerns by paying them as quickly as possible after receipt of an invoice and all proper documentation IAW DPAP Memo

2013-O0008, dated 5 Apr 13. However, contractors shall not be entitled to interest penalties if the Government fails to make early payment IAW 232.906 (a)(ii).

12 I noticed market research has been initiated for Aruba and Curacao locations of the contract FA489007C0007: FOL-BOS. However, what will happen with services for the Ecuador location? Are they no longer needed? Or will they be contracted out separately?

The FOL at the Ecuador location closed in 2009 and no longer is a contract requirement.

13 Section L, Paragraph L-

8.4

With regard to “Relevant Contracts”, will AMIC consider a contract to be relevant that has a similar scope and complexity but not necessarily the same dollar value? Is there a minimum contract value for a past performance reference to be considered a “Relevant Contract”?

There is no minimum contract value for a past performance reference, however to be relevant considered relevant the reference must have a similar scope and complexity.