PACAF_DMO_IPASS_RFP_Q A_10_June_13.pdf

RFP FA5215‐13‐R‐7004

Questions and Answers 10 June 2013

No. Page Section Para. Question/Answer

1Q 36 H H‐16 For cost planning purposes, will the PACAF/A3X meeting be held at JBPH‐H?

1A Currently, the meeting may be held via telecom. This is subject to change.

2Q 39 H H‐18 Does the government have a preference on how a bidder portrays the CB protective system cost in the pricing volume as evidence of completeness?

2A Supporting data in the pricing volume may be submitted in a format selected by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.

3Q 101 L 1.1.1 & 1.1.3

Is Cross reference Matrix included or excluded from the page count?

3A The Cross Reference Matrix will be excluded from the page count.

4Q

L

C M

2.2.3

1.3 M‐1. A

The PWS, Section 1.3, Requirements (IPASS Core Tasks) dictate that support shall be provided at various airbase locations, at adequate levels, to include any and all costs required, yet no information is provided as to current staffing at these bases, neither have projections been provided by the Government on the number of persons to be trained at each base or other metrics so that an Offeror, other than the incumbent, may viably submit a bid in response to the solicitation.

Additionally, in Section L, 2.2.3, the sole technical factor applicable/evaluated for this solicitation is manning levels. Given the above concern, it appears the Section L instructions and associated Section M evaluation criteria at M‐1.A limit the field of competition, and have not been designed to achieve full an open competition under the Competition In Contracting Act (CICA).

Request the Government consider amending the unduly restrictive nature of the Solicitation to more fairly provide criteria and information necessary to meet the Government’s minimum needs, through such actions, including but not limited to, providing current staffing levels, anticipated training workload and training schedules to ensure qualified and interested Offerors may fairly compete to meet the Governments mission needs and maximize competition?

4A The Government has provided the necessary information for Offeror's to provide a competitive offer. Please refer to the RFP and the attachments in their entirety.

5Q 115 M C.(2)b Several of the criteria for determining scope, magnitude, and complexity relevancy for past performance appear to restrict fair competition. There are very few contracts/orders, other than the one held by the incumbent for this effort, that could meet these criteria within one contract, yet many Offerors would be able to more than adequately address these requirements over multiple past performance citations.

1. Criteria 1: Conducting IPASS core tasks defined in PWS paragraphs

1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 having a minimum security clearance requirement of SECRET SAR. While Offerors understand that work under this contract will require performance in accordance with the DD254, what is the rationale for limited past performance citations to work performed only at a SECRET SAR level? If an offeror meets the RFP‐stipulated facility clearance, why wouldn’t performance of RFP required tasks at any security level be directly indicative of the Offerors ability to perform this PWS? In addition, under this format, international work, not necessarily complying with US security clearance requirements, but perfectly valid, could also be precluded from consideration, although such tasks were performed in accordance with security process, but not necessarily under a DD254.

2. Criteria 3: Conducting IPASS core tasks for multiple tactical weapon systems in multiple locations under one contract. This requirement to conduct such tasks at the various locations under one contract restricts most, if not all, viable Offerors, other than the incumbent, from providing adequate past performance citations and being considered for award. Deeming an Offeror’s past performance ‘not relevant’ if it has conducted IPASS like core tasks for tactical weapons systems, and supported such tasks at multiple locations, yet excluding these contracts from consideration hereunder, seems overly restrictive and not in the best interest of the Government. Request the Government consider amending the restrictive nature of the Solicitation to evaluation criteria necessary to meet the Government’s minimum needs and maximize competition?

3. Criteria 4: Management of contracts and subcontractors valued over $6 million annually conducting IPASS core tasks. Is the criterion intended to address an Offeror’s ability to manage a large contract with subcontractors, or specifically limited only to this IPASS effort? If an offeror has relevant past performance without the help of subcontractors, or if the annual value is less than $6M, are we to assume the Government deems such efforts not relevant? This seems discordant from the Government’s clear attempt, in Criteria 2 (Performing academic instruction, to include, Instrument Refresher Course (IRC), simulator training (to include LVC) and Distributed Mission Operations (DMO).). Criteria 2 is not restrictive in its nature and fairly seeks past performance reflective of PWS tasks

5A The Government has reviewed the request and this section will remain as written. The Government has provided the necessary information for Offeror's to provide a competitive offer. Please refer to the RFP and the attachments in their entirety.

6Q 46 H‐23 We understand this is no cost reimbursement for relocation costs associated with: real estate acquisition, vacant home costs, and transportation cost of spouse or dependents. 1. Please clarify the following question: Does Special Clause H‐23 prohibit an offeror from including relocation cost, not specifically excluded in this clause, in the Phase‐In CLIN 0010 for the initial stand‐up of the two new sites, Kunsan and Osan?

6A

IAW Special Clause H‐23, any other travel costs incident to relocations shall not be reimbursed by the Government and shall be the responsibility of the contractor.